| Written by Maria Elena Salinas |
| Tuesday, February 10 2004 |
| |
| I'm sure I am not the only one who sat there listening to former U.S. weapons inspector David Kay's testimony before Congress, as he explained how there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, while at the same time having flashbacks of Colin Powell making a case for war before the United Nations.
A year ago, the secretary of state, in his eloquent and elegant style, sat before the international forum -- graphics and all -- enumerating the massive amounts of weapons that Saddam Hussein had stored away and could potentially put in the hands of terrorists who would eventually use them against the American people and the rest of the world. For that reason, we had to go to war to stop the imminent threat to humanity.
Oops! Well, it turns out that there are no weapons of mass destruction -- not new ones anyway, not yet. Kay spent nine months in Iraq as the U.S. special envoy because our government did not give credence to reports by U.N. weapons inspectors, who could not find even a fraction of the 500 tons of chemical weapons Mr. Powell said Saddam Hussein was stockpiling. Now Dr. Kay says he believes there never were any such weapons.
Saddam Hussein was not developing a nuclear program either, and the trailers that were spotted by our intelligence agents were not mobile laboratories whose purpose was to manufacture biological weapons. As it turns out, the data used by Colin Powell were inaccurate and outdated. Mr. Powell himself now concedes that had he known there was no stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, he might not have recommended an invasion of Iraq.
After months of being in denial, the Bush administration is calling it an intelligence failure, and the president himself is asking for an independent commission to investigate the matter. But even supposing the commission determines that the president was misled or misinformed, questions still remain: Was he also misled about some of the other reasons for going to war that the administration gave to the American people? What about the links to al-Qaida? They haven't been proven yet. What about the connection to Sept. 11? Mr. Bush has admitted that there was no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks. So why did we go to war?
Fernando Suarez del Solar, who lost his son Jesus in Iraq, believes the death of his son and those of other American soldiers were the result of lies, but he believes they did not die in vain. "They are an example of heroism, courage and love for peace," he says. "They went there believing we were in danger and did not hesitate for a moment to defend their country."
It's a fact that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator. It's a fact that he jailed and tortured his opponents and killed thousands of his own people. It is also true that Saddam Hussein was in violation of U.N. resolution 1441 and that he was trying to build missiles that went beyond the 90-mile limit.
The Iraqi people no longer have to live in fear. They are free to speak, to practice their religion and to elect their own leaders. Eventually they will be better off, but for now they live surrounded by instability and uncertainty.
The fall of the Baathist Party and Saddam's capture have not made Iraq a safer place. Some of the bloodiest attacks since the end of major combat have come after his arrest. The world is not safer after the invasion. There have been several terrorist attacks around the world since the war began, and constant threats are disrupting the travel industry.
Did we go to war to control the oil in the region? Did we go to war to vindicate President George Bush senior? Did "W" want to finish off the job for his dad? Is it true that the invasion of Iraq was planned even before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks?
Mr. Suarez and the families of more than 520 Americans, 57 British, 17 Spaniards, thousands of Iraqis and others who have lost their lives in Iraq deserve answers. |
