Why Iraq?

One of the more common recurring canards in the “Bush Lied” meme is that of a single major cause for action against Iraq. Whether it is the more popular WMD threat or the conspiratorial oil greed, it is still quite ignorant of history. One of the many readily available resources that could help provide insight is the President’s Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly September 12, 2002.

Yes indeed, WMD is in there. Oil can be found in the ‘oil for food’ scandal reference. But consider these in the context of “If the Iraqi regime wishes peace…”

it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material. …

it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions. …

it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi’a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions. …

it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions. …

it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

So there was a path for peace: Don’t play games with the world about WMD, help squash terrorism, cease filling mass graves, meet the conditions of the Gulf War cease fire agreement, and cease abuse of the oil-for-food concessions.

A proper debate would consider the value of each of these issues and their merit in supporting various actions to resolve them individually or all together. But instead of such a debate, there is accusation and allegation that completely ignores these issues. One side of the ‘debate’ is simply a partisan political attack that avoids the reality of history in order to impugn and demean. Winning the political argument takes precedence over any other consideration, even the truth.

What should be the real worry? Is it the decision or how the decision is used as a weapon?

Comments are closed.