Thursday, April 14, 2005

The end justifies the means . . ?

We are victorious!
We have started the domino effect of democracy in the middle east. Women no longer have to wear a veil and every person has the right to vote in Iraq and Afghanistan. A ruthless dictator has been over thrown and the people of Iraq, nay, the world are better off for it!
Our mission is accomplished, just as we set out to do!
But wait.
On March 6 2003, President George W. Bush said "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.... I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons."
Later that month the war began.
During the 2004 election poll after poll was taken, after the dust had settled 41% of voters said that National Security was the single biggest factor in determining their vote (Rasmussen Reports, 11/8/2004).
The United Nations inspectors had been giving preliminary reports that indicated there were no WMD to be found in Iraq, but they were unable to complete their investigation after war broke out. President Bush appointed his own investigator, and he did complete his report, saying that the UN inspectors were correct - there were no weapons of mass destruction.
So tell me again, why did we enter Iraq? Was it to over throw a tyrant and install democracy, as the claim goes now? Was it to gain more control of the oil? Was it an election stunt to garner a second term of office and finally pull George W. out of his father's shadow?
What ever it was, it certainly seems it was not to eliminate the Weapons of Mass destruction and the terror threat that presented to the United States, as the claim went before the war. We have been duped and lied to.
But does the end justify the means?

No comments:

Post a Comment