The Bush Administration used a series of arguments to invade Iraq. Its main argument given to the world, and the world immediately rejected, was that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that they are hiding and only an invasion would show them. Our US Special Forces for finding those Iraqi secret weapons of mass destructions are saying there are no weapons, and they will come home by the end of this month.
When the UN Inspectors could not find the WMD, the Bush Administration used a form of Texas reasoning to show that the very act of not finding them indicated they were there. If that was the reasoning the US took then, that reasoning should be good now. So, instead of preparing to send our search team home at the end of the month because they have looked everywhere and cannot find these WMD, that failure to find them means that they are there! Saddam did not used them on our troops, so doesn't that too indicate that they are there?
This form of reasoning was foolish then, and the world said so, and it is foolish now. It isn't surprising, however, that the Bush Administration used this argument--they have used many silly arguments in the past--but it is tragic that America allowed such foolishness to persuade 54% of its people into approving a Bush invasion to settle an old score, as Congressman Graham said, with Saddam Hussein. This blood for blood feud is peculiar to the Middle East, not America.
The special unit of the US military sent to find weapons supposedly secreted away by Iraq will be coming home at the end of this month empty-handed, but who in the Administration cares. They just wanted to go to Iraq, kill thousands of people, to acquire an oil-rich nation--a petro station, as it were--to settle old grudges, show the world a strong military arm, award special contracts to a few friends, and to do Ariel Sharon's bidding. The once Great Britain went along like a lap dog for the ride, and our objective mass media went along as pit bulls, barking America's praises.
This writer wants to know, how long will the American people not demand statesmen instead of conflict of interest politicians? Although Bush was not elected, he never allowed any shame of his non-election to stop him from advancing his and his fellow politicians' avarice. They personally marched into an already weakened nation with US tanks and planes and declared themselves heroes and heroines for their act; they declared the US king of the world; and they declared the noble cause of liberating the Iraqi people. But when did America or any US administration ever care about non-white peoples of the world?
The main reason the Bush administration used to invade Iraq gave them some degree of comfort at home, viz., that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, they could sell those to terrorists (we have our own) and those weapons would pose a direct threat to US security.
The Bush Administration's argument was simply ludicrous. Now we are there, and we look like we looked when trying to go there with the world's sanction--foolish.
This Texas style of administering the affairs of the US has made
this nation look like jackasses in the eyes of the world, including
Iraqis, those people we went to liberate. But who cares,
we have the weapons, now we have the oil, and the world kowtows
to our power, and we are happy as if there is no tomorrow! But we
are disgraced in the eyes of the world, and, yes, there is always
a tomorrow.
Simond Griote