President George W. Bushs handpicked investigator
charged with investigating whether there were weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq has now rendered his final
report: There
were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Period. No
stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. No nuclear
weapons. No factories to produce them. No air-conditioned, modernistic labs hidden under the sand. Nada. It turns out
that Saddam Hussein had disarmed many years before
President Bush had repeatedly said that the United States
needed to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam. In
the pre-war debate between Saddam Hussein and George W.
Bush over Iraqs weapons of mass destruction, there
is now no doubt as to who was telling the truth and who
was not.
That means that all the fear that was instilled in
the American people by Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza
Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz was
ill-founded. The horrible thoughts that pervaded
peoples minds that Saddam Husseins terrorists
would break into their homes and spray chemical and
biological weapons in their faces were groundless.
Hundreds of yards of duct tape wasted. All the gas
masks people bought during those scary times unnecessary.
The horrible thoughts of Saddams mushroom clouds
rising above American cities that kept people awake at
night all baseless.
As The Future of Freedom Foundation repeatedly pointed
out before the war, Saddam Hussein and the nation of Iraq
never posed any danger to the United States. None. After all, don't forget that Saddam was once ranked
among the close dictatorial allies of the U.S. government. In fact, U.S. officials trusted Saddam Hussein so much that they even authorized the delivery to him of the WMD about which they later complained. (See: Where
Did Iraq Get Its Weapons of Mass Destruction? and
Reagans
WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein.) Moreover, it is now clear that despite all the hullabaloo about needing to "disarm" Saddam of the WMD that the United States and other Western countries had delivered to him, Saddam had in fact disarmed after the Persian Gulf War.
More important, as FFF repeatedly emphasized before the
war, the nation of Iraq never attacked the United States
or even threatened to attack the United States. That
makes the U.S. attack on Iraq a war of aggression, a war
that was termed a war crime by the Nuremberg War Crimes
Tribunal and which has long been banned by the UN Charter, to which the United States is a signatory. It also makes the continued
occupation of Iraq a legal and moral travesty.
The responsibility for all this lies jointly with Bush
and John Kerry. Bush went to war without the
constitutionally required congressional declaration of
war, and Kerry and his congressional cohorts permitted
him to do so by means of an unconstitutional and cowardly
delegation to the president of Congresss power to
declare war.
As it has become increasingly clear that the obsessive
ruminations of U.S. officials regarding Iraqs WMDs
lacked reality, U.S. officials have returned to
regime change to justify their invasion and
war of aggression against Iraq. Isnt the
world better off without Saddam Hussein? they
repeatedly challenge people who challenge what they have
done.
The correlative question, however, which they have never
answered is, Is the world better off without the
tens of thousands of innocent people you have killed in
this invasion and war of aggression and with the tens of
thousands of innocent people who are now maimed or
impoverished as a consequence? Didnt they
have a right to live? Didnt they have a right to
seek happiness in their own way, albeit under tyranny,
without losing their lives, eyesight, arms, legs, or other body
parts? The uncomfortable truth that we can only hope will
begin to seep into the conscience of every single
American is that an estimated 10,00030,000 innocent
people, including both American and Iraqi soldiers and civilians, are now dead 310 times the number of
innocent people killed at the World Trade Center. (Note: The Pentagon
doesnt keep count of Iraqi dead and
maimed because
they are foreigners, not Americans.)
While U.S. officials people blithely cast off the Iraqi dead and wounded as "casualties of war" and "collateral damage," every single one of these tens of thousands of dead and maimed people were as innocent as the victims in the World Trade Center, given that none of them had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks on the American people. No matter how tragic were the deaths, injuries, and destruction on 9/11, those attacks cannot morally justify the death, injuries, and destruction wreaked by the Pentagon and the CIA on tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi people.
When there is terrorist retaliation on Americans for the
deaths and maiming of these innocent people, U.S.
officials, including those in the Pentagon, will respond
the same way they responded after 9/11: They have
attacked us because they hate our freedom. What they will actually be referring
to is the freedom of the U.S. government to
kill innocent people abroad, just as they did with the
brutal
sanctions regime that contributed
to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
children under the rationale of
regime change and just as they did with the
invasion and war of aggression against Iraq that is now
being justified under that same morally bankrupt
rationale of regime change. After all, let's not forget the brutally callous statement by former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright, who in response to a question from "60 Minutes" as to whether the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children had been worth the attempt to oust Saddam from power, said: “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.” In other words, in the minds of U.S. officials "regime change" was worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis during the 1990s and it was worth the lives of tens of thousands more in 2003.
Just think, after the presidential election U.S.
officials will be free to invade other
countries where people are suffering under dictatorships
for the purpose of regime change so that they
can challenge people with, Isnt the world better
off without those dictators? You know, places like
Pakistan, Vietnam, North Korea, China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, Iran, Syria, and Burma. At an average
of 20,000 dead per country, that would mean only 200,000
more innocent people killed for purposes of regime
change. Would the world be better off without them?
Who cares? Wouldnt the world be better off without their dictators? And after all, let's not forget that the dead and maimed will only be foreigners and will just be considered "casualties of war" or "collateral damage." Moreover, since the Pentagon doesn't count foreigners it kills and maims anyway, we won't really have to concern ourselves with accurate numbers.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The
Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
|
Send to a friend
Printer Friendly PDF Format
Subscribe to FFF Email Update
Subscribe to Freedom Daily
|
|
|
|