2 of 5

Write now Article Tools

President George W. Bush convinced Americans and many others that Saddam Hussein was a danger to us and our friends. There was no real proof offered, just hot air. W claimed that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs)that would surely be used to attack us. He said Saddam cooperated with al-Qaeda and was involved with 911. Bush claimed that Saddam was seeking yellow cake from Niger for developing nuclear weapons. All of these assertions were made strenuously to the American people and before the United Nations. Bush ignored the U.N. weapon's investigators, Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, who insisted that Saddam had complied with the U.N. mandates and represented no real risk to America or anyone else. Millions of Iraqis had been malnourished after Gulf Storm, due to U.S. sponsored U.N. economic sanctions. Now, millions more would be killed, wounded or made refugees.

There is no credible dispute that Bush used false arguments to start his pre-emptive war on Iraq. The neo-cons openly acknowledge their justifications for the war were not supported by evidence. Iraq had no WMDs, just as Saddam and the U.N. investigators said. None of the 911 perpetrators was an Iraqi and there were no Iraqi links to al-Qaeda, until after America invaded Iraq. It turned out that Saddam was not developing nuclear weapons or pursuing yellow cake, but he probably regretted not doing that, when he had the ability and resources to do so. North Korea, which has nuclear weapons, was not invaded, while Iraq, which has no nuclear weapons, was invaded by America. The moral to the story seems to be if a country wants to be safe from American invasion, it is best to have nuclear weapons.

What were the repercussions by the U.N. and others for the American neo-cons use of false arguments to justify war on Iraq? There were none. America was not even forced to promise to provide a departure date from its occupation of Iraq. Although it has been shown that America invaded Iraq on false pretexts, something which its president had to know, the world has allowed America to do as it pleased in Iraq. Meanwhile, 4 years after invading Iraq, Bush tried to justify pre-emptively attacking Iran based on similarly false arguments. Bush knew his claims that Iran was developing nuclear weapons would be refuted by the latest N.I.E., yet Bush persisted in saying that Iran was doing so and would lead to WWIII unless America stopped it. The neo-con war-mongering bravado is entirely consistent. Remember, Bush challenged

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Commentary: Bush uses false argument to justify war in Iraq?
We want to hear your view. Write now!