The Bush administration has listed a number of reasons for going to war with Iraq. The biggest and most common is that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction, including biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Of course before his capture, Hussein has long claimed that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction (CNN, 2.8.03). We clearly can't take Iraq's word for it. In Bush's declaration of war speech, he changed the long-standing reference to "weapons of mass destruction" to "weapons of mass murder" (AP, 3.19.03). Clearly "mass murder" and "mass destruction" are different things. The Columbine kids are mass murderers, but they surely didn't engage in mass destruction. Is this a conscience choice by the administration to cover their tails because the evidence doesn't support their old terminology? There is still, no proof whatsoever that Iraq ever had weapons of mass destruction, and there is still no justifying reason for the U.S. Military's invasion of the Middle......
Join Now or Login to view the rest of this paper.
Approximate Word Count: 1568
Approximate Pages: 7 (260 words per double-spaced page) |