|
|
Political |
|
|
Write:
|
The Chattanooga Times Free Press reports that Bush offered his "most vigorous defense yet of his decision to invade Iraq, rejecting as false and baseless accusation that his administration twisted intelligence to support his case for war." The President according to this article stated "The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges...These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning Americas will.” The President is simply wrong. The attacks are not baseless; the attacks are based on fact. Here are the facts: 1. Bush contended that Hussein possessed nuclear, biological and chemical weapons justifying the war. Bush is wrong, no weapons existed. 2. Bush claimed Hussein was in league with al Qaeda and Hussein would provide weapons to al Qaeda. This is not true, and has not been substantiated in any form. 3. Bush relied on a seriously flawed 2002 intelligence assessment concluding that Hussein was hiding illegal nuclear weapons program and stockpiling biological and chemical weapons. Hussein did not have nuclear weapons, and he was not stockpiling any biological or chemical weapons. 4. Pre war reports from the CIA found there was no operational cooperation between Hussein and al Qaeda. The 9/11 commission reached the same conclusion—there was no cooperation, there was no link to terrorism. 5. CIA Reports discounted Hussein's ability to provide weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda or terrorists. Hussein never provided weapons to terrorists. We went to war with this President claiming Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. After combat operations began, no weapons were found. As of today there is no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and there is no evidence of Hussein’s ability to provide weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda. After the President announced “Mission Accomplished” we continue to fight a war without a purpose, a war without an objective, a war without an exit strategy. In response to the growing facts showing the original mission to find weapons of mass destruction is wrong, the President arrogantly announces that “the stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges.” He arrogantly states we are sending the wrong signal to our troops. The facts do not support the President’s position. In light of the facts clearly showing he is wrong we must ask--what signal is the President sending by refusing to accept the facts, by refusing to apologize, and refusing to propose a sound exit strategy from a war that has no relationship to terrorism? What signal is he sending by calling those who talk about the facts unpatriotic? What signal is he sending by asking us to quietly accept a war without a cause, without a mission? What signal is he sending to terrorists who know that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with their mission of terror? It is no wonder the President’s current approval rating is 37 percent.
|
