Iraq War When I Examine

Iraq War

When I examine the events leading to the war in Iraq and Bush's self proclaimed "War on Terrorism" I am reminded of the way that Adolph Hitler managed to convince the people of his time that he was actually protecting them from some future unforeseen disaster if the Jews and Gypsies were allowed to roam freely about. While most of While Americans may have a hard time comparing Bush to Hitler, the further into this war we get the more they look like brothers to me.

Senator Robert Byrd presents a viewpoint that is closely matched to my feelings on the war in Iraq and Bush's self proclaimed "War on Terrorism." He believes, as do I, that the American people have been sold a bill of goods and misled for the purpose of gaining support for his personal agenda.

There is ample evidence that the horrific events of September 11 have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda who masterminded the September 11th attacks, to Saddam Hussein who did not (Byrd, 2003)." have said from the beginning of the war that we seem to have forgotten about Bin Laden and simply focused on Saddam. I believe that Bush used the events of 9-11 to gain public support to go after Bin Laden when in fact he really wanted to use our military to go after Saddam for taking a hit out on Bush's dad in the early 90's.

The Administration assured the U.S. public and the world, over and over again, that an attack was necessary to protect our people and the world from terrorism. It assiduously worked to alarm the public and blur the faces of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden until they virtually became one (Byrd, 2003)."

But for me they did not. I have said from the beginning that Bush pulled a bait and switch on the American people which was very similar to the tactics Hitler used many years ago and that thought is a scary one indeed.

Senator Byrd points out the fact that when America invaded Iraq, Iraq didn't even sends up a single war plane to try and fend us off. If Iraq had weapons of mass destruction available as Bush was insisting that it did, something would have been done to fight us off. The Iraqi people have made it clear they do not appreciate our invasion, they don't want us there and at this point they despise our very existence, so why if they had accessibility to weapons would they not have used them yet (Byrd, 2003)?

The answer is simple. There aren't any weapons. Senator Byrd provides a strong argument along those lines with his belief that Bush has lied to the American public all along.

What makes me cringe even more is the continued claim that we are "liberators (Byrd, 2003)." The facts don't seem to support the label we have so euphemistically attached to ourselves (Byrd, 2003). True, we have unseated a brutal, despicable despot, but "liberation" implies the follow up of freedom, self-determination and a better life for the common people (Byrd, 2003). In fact, if the situation in Iraq is the result of "liberation," we may have set the cause of freedom back 200 years (Byrd, 2003)." agree with Byrd when he reminds the American people that our claim to have liberated the Iraqi people has actually put them in a position to have very little food, little water, destroyed towns and cities and no government to speak of.

To top it off the initial request to self-govern was stalled and ignored for many months as Bush proclaimed victory and insisted that America handle things for awhile. If the true motive was to liberate the Iraqi people why did Bush insist on telling them once they were liberated how their nation would be run?

As so many warned this Administration before it launched its misguided war on Iraq, there is evidence that our crack down in Iraq is likely to convince 1,000 new Bin Laden's to plan other horrors of the type we have seen in the past (Byrd, 2003). Instead of damaging the terrorists, we have given them new fuel for their fury (Byrd, 2003)."