Blasphemy!

One can recall when President George W. Bush notified the citizens of America about the beginning of the War in Iraq In March, 2003: "My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."
One can recall the threat of Saddam's regime possessing illicit weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), when in fact the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) reported on Iraq's possession of WMDs in 2002 that, "Iraq is unlikely to produce indigenously enough weapons-grade material for a deliverable nuclear weapon until the last half of this decade." The pre- war report would afterward incorrectly state, "Baghdad could produce a nuclear weapon within a year if it were able to procure weapons-grade fissile material abroad."
The chemical warfare program, as told to us by the CIA, seemed to also be well prepared. The report says, "Iraq has the ability to produce chemical warfare (CW) agents within its chemical industry." The CIA notifies us however that Iraq had to receive proper materials from other nations. It also admittedly lacks hardcore evidence past the Gulf War, and instead relies on inferences.
The CIA claimed "Iraq has the capability to convert quickly legitimate vaccine and biopesticide plants to biological warfare (BW) production and already may have done so." The biological warfare program provides more recent hardcore evidence as of 1995 than the chemical warfare plan, pointing out that the Iraqi government announced that it had concealed illicit biological weapons from UN inspectors.
Our purpose in Iraq has drifted from securing the nation and liberating the indigenous people of that country. In another segment of the State of the Union Address, Bush conveyed "We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people." A somewhat odd ambition, as one will see.
The threat was proved false by a particular Charles Duelfer, an employee for the ISG (Iraq Survey Group). Apart from the CIA but for the government, Duelfer visited Iraq to explore the claim that the nation did indeed posses weapons of mass destruction. What he found was plain nothing.

The article reveals simply that there were no WMDs in Iraq. In fact, Duelfer concluded that since the Gulf War in 1991, the capabilities of Iraq to produce such a weapon had steadily deteriorated. Saddam Hussein was therefore not a threat. Bush claimed on the outbreak of war that "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
All of this is contrary to the 2002 CIA report, which stated "Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions." Some of this is true. Saddam admitted that he had the intention on creating biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, all of which would defy UN restrictions. He did not however, as one must acknowledge, have the means to produce them.
The terrorist threat, as well as the WMD threat, was incorrect. Duelfer, in the same document that revealed Iraq's incapability to produce WMDs also revealed that Saddam Hussein had only tenuous ties (at best) with the infamous terrorist organization al Qaeda. At the alleged end of the War in Iraq, President George W. Bush managed to confuse the two: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions."
This quote describes al Qaeda's actions, not instigated or even influenced by Hussein and his dictatorship. But the president persisted, saying, "Nineteen months ago, I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States." Not to mention: "We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding." Perhaps must one consider: "And this much is certain: no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more." In this volley of irony, can one indulge such words contrary to the truth?*
It is here implied that the War in Iraq was a mere faction of the war on terror. Perhaps the ambition of the Republican cabinet was distraught when they invaded Iraq with the intention of finding the terrorist that had harmed our nation when he was least likely to be there. It is not plausible how al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein are related. The purpose is because they weren't.
The invasion of Iraq came at a time when the true enemy to the country was counting his days. One may say the terrorist threat was high for us Americans, but not in Iraq. It seems that ever since our occupation, we've done a better job at creating terrorists than crushing them.
Through all of this overwhelming evidence, the threat in Iraq was bogus. However, outside of the monotonous reports of various organizations, Republicans continue to assess that this was a growing danger to the U.S.A. True, Iraq exhibited a lack of cooperation in response to the UN weapons inspections, and had the intention to develop ballistic and chemical weapons that exceeded the range set by the UN. Nevertheless, it should be inferred via presented facts that the "threat" of Saddam Hussein could have been neutralized without a war (but with the possibility of forceful action).

The ambition of restoring control to the Iraqi people has not been neglected. It is without a doubt that Saddam Hussein was a horrible tyrant. He also recently gained money through illicit oil trade. It is also true that he supported terrorist groups other than al Qaeda. Hussein has the blood of the Kurdish purges on his hands as well. Many war sympathizers argue for the justification of this war by claiming that these points display the need and duty of America to liberate a nation of peoples who have been deprived of their human privileges.
First let us examine Iraq's former stance on terrorism according to a 1999 CIA report. Iraq has "continued to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups" and "Iraq provided bases, weapons, and protection to the MEK, an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime." Iraq then had had quite a terrorist agenda during the dawn of their collapse, that is, excluding al Qaeda.
The two things that these terrorists obviously have in common are that they advocate change through unconventional guerilla warfare and had Saddam's backing. Another factor to consider though is that if the government knew of existing terrorists, why hadn't the War on Terror begun when this report was published? Why hasn't the War on Terror extended to all of the other listed countries in this report, which are Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, and Sudan. Why was Iraq specifically selected when Iran and North Korea sponsored a larger terrorist program and possessed WMDs?
Perhaps logically, we do not have the resources to embark on such an emancipation crusade. We certainly don't have as manly allies, who are now skeptical toward our resolve after the Iraqi fiasco. But then again, another thing that the terrorist groups had in common is that they didn't directly threat the security of America. The possibly destined War on Terror had been postponed until we felt the wrath of terrorism.
Which presents a paradox. We liberated Afghanistan, yes, but then we went into Iraq, where no terrorist group had harmed us. We associated the war with Saddam Hussein and tied it to al Qaeda.
The lack of reasoning with countries that promote terror provides an inconsistency among the U.S. policy. Some think it is justifiable to invade countries because of their terror element. If this were the case among a consistent U.S.A., then the genocide in Sudan would be controlled.
It seems we are beginning to universally confront terrorism by smashing governments supporting it. But one must consider the safety of America. Via our international supremacy, the government has deemed it necessary to liberate any vice that exists to mankind. However, those vices that directly harm us should be dealt with first. If we were to go on an all out campaign against international terror, we logically would not have the resources. Also, we couldn't concentrate as much on the real problems at hand.
Al Qaeda was the real problem at hand. I reiterate Saddam's regime did support terrorism, and by ceasing his regime, we ceased some terrorist elements in the nation. Nonetheless, terrorism against Americans has now arisen in Iraq, against foreign military, workers, and indigenous supporters of America. The terror that was ended when Saddam fell has been compensated by Iraq dissent for our existence in their country.
Terrorism based in Iraq never harmed us. There was no Iranian separatist 9/11. Our security was not lessened because of Iraqi terrorist organizations. Terrorism is something that must be confronted, but not under the wrong position.
Concerning the Kurds, let us revisit the Iran-Iraq War, which existed during the purges of the Kurdish Iraqi citizens. The Iraqi invasion of post- revolutionary Iran caused an eight-year war, from 1980 to 1988. Unlike our present stance on terrorism, the "neutral" (as one will see, America was not at all neutral) American government decided to sponsor both warring countries. The only conceivable reason for this action was the Middle East's wealth of oil, and our will to reestablish diplomatic ties with a possible Soviet area. In other words, America provided the Iranian government with true and false intelligence on the Soviet and Iraqi imminence and with weapons (sometimes for hostages) and the Iraqi government with biological and chemical weapons.
The money that the U.S. government received from indirect weapons sales to Iran went to the Nicaraguan Contras, whose purpose was to overthrow the Sandinista Marxist government. The Contras were in fact terrorists. Besides outright stomping on laws that prohibited neutral military trade, the U.S. in 1986 also endorsed the element which it was trying to rid of: terrorism. This also broke the Boland Amendment, which banned U.S. military relations with the Contras. This is quite contrary to our past and present stance on terrorism.
It should be noted that America didn't fail to sponsor anti-Iranian terrorist groups such as the Front of the Liberation for Iran. Great sums of money were allotted to these terrorist factions to ensure the overthrow of the existing Iranian government.
Perhaps our terrorist ties with Nicaraguan and Iranian groups may be irrelevant to the Republican ideology. Further proof of our hypocrisy on terrorism is that when after the Iranian-Contra scandal became public, we leaned toward the terrible dictatorship of Iraq. This isn't to say that we supported Iraq in the beginning. Weapons and money were given to the regime for our nation to regain diplomacy with Iraq. In fact, Iraq was taken off of the nice little list that the CIA has since prepared in 1999.
Our lean for Iraq was mainly exhibited by the attempt to establish an embargo on Iran according to a proposed treaty, and our naval support and flagging (waving the U.S. flag) of neutral ships in the Gulf. These neutral ships included (like ourselves) the not-so-neutral Kuwait, who supplied Iraq with arms via ships.
The 2002 CIA report remembers Iraq's weapons, as shown. "During the 1980s Saddam had a formidable CW capability that he used against Iranians and against Iraq's Kurdish population." The weapons we gave to Iraq were used dually against the Iranians and against Saddam's internal enemy, the Kurds. Cover-ups for Iraq were also provided by the U.S., specifically blaming a chemical weapon attack on a Kurdish area on Iran rather than on the Iraqi government.
Our ambition, it seems, is frequently subject to opportunism.
Conclusion: the WMD threat and terrorist threat as it pertains to us and our allies was not existent, as well as Iraq's endorsement of terrorism was equal to ours during the Iran-Iraq War and our endorsement of Saddam Hussein under the feign of a neutral country. Without a doubt this evidence is enough to appease any travesties that right-wingers hold as correct when they use superficial facts to justify a war that contradicts all of their own standpoints. In the end, there was nothing more to defend in this war than our own bravado.
But, on a more comical note, Bush's State of the Union can be felt at the center of patriotic fervor and pre-emptive assault: "Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland." Indeed, it has.

*All quotes originate from the speech made on the USS Abraham Lincoln.