Dear Editor,
Last January, I along with hundreds of thousands of other protesters, marched against the Bush administration's desire to invade Iraq for it being an "imminent threat" to the United States and the world.
As the news is reporting now, it does not seem as though there are many (if any) weapons of mass destruction or even the capability to build them. On June 13, the Associated Press reported that there was no transfer of uranium from Niger to Iraq or even a purchase in 2001 for that matter.
This was one of the many false reports that the Bush Administration pushed on the American people and our allies.
Recently, General James Conway had a statement about the search for the alleged weapons of mass destruction.
The commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force said, "We were simply wrong ... Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwait border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."
This was reported by Robert Scheer in The Nation.
I am not writing to gloat about how right I was. Instead, I am writing to say that we went to war for the wrong reasons.
If the Bush administration had said in the beginning that this war was solely about freeing the Iraqi people, I and many of my friends would have been much more likely to support it.
People around the world ought to be free. Perhaps we should free other nations such as Chechnya, Liberia and Saudi Arabia.
Freedom of the Iraqi people was never the real reason to go to war with Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz said so in an interview with Vanity Fair.
He had three reasons why the U.S. should go to war with Iraq: find weapons of mass destruction, fight terrorism and end Saddam Hussein's criminal treatment of the Iraqi People.
Wolfowitz said that the "third one, by itself is a reason to help the Iraqis but it is not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale [that] we did it."
I think the third reason is a lot better then the alleged first.