The recent revelations by top weapons inspector David Kay that the United States used faulty intelligence to justify the war in Iraq does a grave injustice to the spirit of our democracy. And in the aftermath, even the most staunch governmental supporter can’t deny that the whole debacle seems a bit fishy.
After Sept. 11, America became deeply concerned — and rightfully so — with its safety, and American citizens rallied in overwhelming numbers to support President Bush’s efforts to battle terrorists in Afghanistan. In short, every American who supported that conflict put their trust and arguably their well-being in the hands of the federal government.
But that trust was grossly mishandled with the war in Iraq. After seemingly abandoning hopes of capturing Osama bin Laden, the accused mastermind of Sept. 11, Bush moved his crosshairs to Iraq, citing its alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (or, now, weapons of mass destruction-related programs) and, subsequently, Iraq’s violation of several United Nations resolutions. At the time, one could not deny that Hussein was an ostensibly oppressive dictator who, under American laws, would be labeled a mass murderer. In theory, Bush could have used that argument to justify the war, but chances are Americans would not have accepted it, given the opinion of many that we are not the world’s policeman.
So Bush chose not to frame his argument for war in that manner, focusing instead on the impending doom or weapons of mass destruction and America’s need to preempt a potential attack. But no evidence was found that suggested Hussein was planning any such attack, and even the intelligence that suggested he still possessed weapons at the time of the war turned out to be faulty. In fact, even any evidence that Hussein was involved with Sept. 11, which is why we began hunting terrorists in the first place, was lacking.
Some political pundits dismiss any criticism of Bush’s handling of intelligence and the war as unpatriotic conspiracy theory. Perhaps they should stop and look at the situation from a different angle. Consider the possibility: America, a nation largely dependent on oil for its livelihood, uses faulty intelligence to invade and depose the government of an oil-rich nation. America then plays large part in instituting a new, America-friendly government while a major American oil company takes over oil production in the country.
After all, if weapons of mass destruction-related programs are such a huge impending concern for us, why haven’t we invaded other countries with similar programs in the works?
Sure, it’s possible that the government’s actions were completely pure in spirit, and America did a good deed for the world by ridding it of a destructive leader (though he has yet to stand trial for his crimes). But from what we know, it’s also conceivable, especially given that the intelligence was wrong, that the government exploited Sept. 11-induced support to sell a war to the American people. And that possibility, however far-fetched, should be investigated thoroughly and should include all officials involved with the war in order to restore credibility and faith in one of the most free democracies in the world.