The Moral Dilemma About US War In Iraq

Mr. President, where are the WMD?

When President George W. Bush took his oath of Office in January 2001, he
swore under penalty of perjury to protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States. Instead, President Bush addressed a Joint Session of Congress
telling them that Iraq was threatening the US with Weapons of Mass
Destruction and that al Qaeda was involved in the horrific 9-11 terrorist
attack on America. President Bush willful deception leading to war in his
State of the Union claimed ("16 words") that there were links between al
Qaeda and Iraq and that Iraq sought to purchase uranium  from Africa.

Well now, the American people and members of Congress took President Bush at
his word.

Yet prior to making those false and outrageous misrepresentations of the
truth,

the CIA admitted that they knew that the "16 words" were not factual but
instead false and misleading;

The US State Department admitted that they knew that the "16 words" were not
factual but instead false and misleading;

The President's White House handlers admitted that they knew that the "16
words" were not factual but instead false and misleading;

And even President George W. Bush himself must have known full well that his
"16 words" were not factual but instead false and misleading;

So then, why did President Bush prevaricate?

Bush made false and misleading statements about the threats of WMD and about
al Qaeda operatives in Iraq. Strong circumstantial evidence leads one to
conclude that President Bush knowingly tricked Congress to get permission to
invade Iraq for strictly political gain?

BUSH LIED. PEOPLE DIED.