Bush\'s Invasion of Iraq

Bush's Invasion Of Iraq

At the first whisper of invading Iraq, there have been expressions of concern and outrage the world over. In September 2002, Nelson Mandela said of the Bush administration, "They think they're the only power in the world ... they're following a dangerous policy, One country wants to bully the world ... We must not allow that" (Bleier Pp). The next day on September 23rd, Al Gore, sharply criticized Bush's plan to invade and complained that he "is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to preemptively attack whosoever he may deem represents future threat" (Bleier Pp). In December 2002, Ronald Bleier wrote in "Middle East Policy" that Bush's determination to attack Iraq "absent a legitimate casus belli" and his administration's signals of embarking on a course of "perpetual war suggest that world civilization is facing a threat similar in significant ways to the one it faced 60 years ago" (Bleier Pp).

Despite Bush's powerful public relations campaign and a compliant media and Congress, wrote Bleier, the administration has been unable to present convincing arguments that show Iraq is a threat to its neighbors or the U.S. (Bleier Pp). "Administrative justifications for preemption are a farrago of outright lies, distortions and efforts to manufacture hysteria," wrote Bleier (Bleier Pp).

Another voice of reason in 2002 was U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein who stated that, "Until and unless the administration is prepared to come forward, offer its rationale, submit its evidence to the American people and allow Congress to vote to authorize the use of force, an attack on Iraq, I believe, would be unwise and ill-timed" (What Pp).

Unfortunately, nothing has changed much in the last two years. The September 11th commission has recently stated that it found "no credible evidence" of cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaeda targeting the United States or any other collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's terror network (Question Pp). Yet only days before, the Vice President proclaimed that Saddam "had long-standing ties with al-Qaeda" and Bush remarked the next day that he supported Cheney's remarks (Question Pp). Rather than continuing to mislead the American people, the administration should acknowledge they were wrong in insisting, both before and after last year's invasion, that Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda (Question Pp). Moreover, long after it was clear that Iraq's weapons programs had been shut down and that Saddam was militarily impotent, the administration continued to insist that he had been stockpiling weapons of mass destruction (Question Pp).

Administration officials have correctly observed that postwar Iraq has become a hotbed of terrorism, however, that's a "result of Bush's ill-advised and ill-timed war, which has galvanized radicals throughout the Middle East and opened up a new front in their holy war against America ... not because Saddam was playing footsie with bin Laden before the war" (Question Pp). If the American people had known that Saddam had no WMD's and no ties to September 11th, it's doubtful Bush could have gained support for an invasion of Iraq, yet he and the vice president continue to distort the truth (Question Pp).

In late October 2004 it was revealed that the Bush administration failed to secure some 380 tons of high-grade explosives in Iraq shortly after the United States took control of the country, "despite being informed of their exact location" (Press Pp). Although, Bush's national security adviser, Condeleeza Rice was informed about the missing explosives at least a month before, the administration never publicly announced the disappearance (Press Pp). The New York Times reported in October that "A European diplomat reported that Jacques Baute, head of the I.A.E.A.'s Iraq nuclear inspection team, warned officials at the United States mission in Vienna about the danger of the nuclear sites and materials once under I.A.E.A. supervision," yet apparently little if anything was done (Press Pp).