A Moral Responsibility Mr. Bush?

Bush Demands Clean War Funding Bill Mar 28th - 6:29pm By DAVID ESPO AP Special Correspondent WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress lurched toward a veto showdown over Iraq on Wednesday, the commander in chief demanding a replenishment of war funding with no strings and Speaker Nancy Pelosi counseling him, "Calm down with the threats." (WTOP)

The President of the United States said something to the effect that the US had a moral responsibility to see the war through to the end. This is a crock.

The war in Iraq, started under the false pretense of preventing the transfer of weapons of mass destruction from being transferred from the Iraq government through direct links to Al-Queda and defeating terrorism, has resulted in close to 3,000 deaths over four years. And to what end? Let's look at the salient points:

First: There has never been a link between the former government of Iraq under Saddam Husein and any terrorist group, much less Al-Queda. This came out in the reports of the September 11 Commission as well as other sources.

Second: There were never any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Both the United Nations and the military forces of the United States and the United Kingdom have proved that.

Third: The moral responsibilities of the United States should be carefully examined when they are spouted forth from the mouth of the current President.

Frankly, I am appalled, both at the elected members of the Congress as well as the President of the United States. Today, Speaker Pelosi actually told the President to put a sock in it and it is about time.

There as been so much FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) coming out of the White House since September 11, 2001, that the nation has almost been gripped in a bad guy mentality to the exclusion of all else. This has got to stop. I feel sorry for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, I really do, but from a statistical perspective, 3000 dead is a trivial number. I don't mean to belittle the deaths of those soldiers, but since the troops went to war, the very freedoms that they took for granted have been slowly whittled away in the name of security while they are supposedly overseas fighting to maintain for the United States (if you listen to the President) as well as to instill a democracy in a country that is in the middle of a religious and multi-ethnic civil war which would not have started if the United States had not invaded Iraq in the first place.

If we want to look at the morality of the issue in terms of overall deaths, consider that 3000 troops have lost their life over the last four years, or less that 1000 per year. In Vietnam, some 58,000 died or some 6000 a year (assuming a 9 year war), in World War 2, some 400,000 died or a little less than 100,000 per year. So the actual troop costs are low. But if you want to put it in perspective, on the roads in 2003, according the Department of Transportation, 40,000 people died or 3,359 per month. If the President of the United States has a moral responsibility, should it not be to the soldiers and people of the United States?

People are dying in the United States at a rate that makes the war in Iraq look like a trivial occupation. Again, this is not meant to disrespect the troops. Families are torn apart, businesses are failing because the sole proprietors are overseas. There is no moral responsibility to see this through to the end. Bring the troops home and begin to focus on the real issues within the borders of the United States. Then talk to the people about a moral responsibility.