Whether the intelligence used to justify the Iraq invasion was faulty or fabricated continues to be debated. Although no evidence of an active Weapons of Mass Destruction program was ever found in Iraq after the invasion; just old, rusting, unusable chemical munitions left over from the Iran-Iraq War decades earlier, some people continue to believe Saddam had a WMD program and managed to hide it somehow. Others believe the Bush administration simply reached the wrong conclusion on the best available information. Others are convinced that the Bush administration fabricated intelligence and lied to justify the invasion.
These contrary beliefs are buttressed by so-called facts. Some of the cited facts are only partially correct and at times contrary to the public record.
The issue should be resolved as conclusively as possible. One way to do so would be a Truth Commission. The Truth Commission should be authorized to probe the circumstances leading up to the invasion by reviewing the entire record including classified information and with unrestricted authority to compel witnesses to testify under oath.
Here are some suggested areas where a Truth Commission could start:
Let us hope that a Truth Commission will conclude that no one in the Bush Administration fabricated intelligence, or misled the Congress and American people. If so, the issues are put to rest and need no further debate.
If the Truth Commission finds the justifications for the Iraq invasion were false, then those responsible should be held fully accountable. To do otherwise dishonors our troops who have paid a horrible price. Many died and hundreds of thousands more suffer from disability which, according to the best estimates, will cost more than one trillion dollars over time.
As veterans, we insist on the answers a commission can provide because the high cost in lives and money still continues and we must not let our nation fail our veterans. They deserve to know the truth.
______________________________
1 Comment
by Murray Fitzhugh
Some things worthy of note.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, zero Iraqis had committed acts of terrorism against the U. S.
That Hussein had used WMDs against the Iranians.
That Hussein, Mubarak in Egypt, and the Shah of Iran were both brutal dictators who suppressed religious zealots with secret police and extreme prejudice.
IMO if we had not invaded Iraq, and had supported the government of Syria (also with a brutal dictator with secret police) we would not have a terrorist problem of this proportion.
Hint to W: You might have made a mistake by not learning to read above the second grade level.
I have lived in the mid-east, and have read that portions of the Quran related to how they treat non-Muslims and their methods of spreading Islam. Too bad none of our present politicians have read same.
John Quincey Adams (President 1825-29) on Mohammed: “…he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust: To exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.”
Winston Churchill: “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fatalistic apathy, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”
“Muhammed is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to unbelievers but merciful to one another.” Quran 48:29.