Right in war but wrong in democracy! It is claimed that the US went for war against Iraq on two grounds
viz., restoration of democracy and as because Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. To some Americans it sounds quite similar to the ridiculous justification of British Rule in India on the pretext called “White Men’s Burden”. Now the people of America are quite confused in accepting the justification of war against Iraq on the two grounds mentioned above after the study report of two nonprofit journalism organizations (working under the support of the Fund for Independence in Journalism) came to light very recently. The highlight of the report is that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false
statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks. The study concludes with the observation that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses." It is said that the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and
information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews. The study has found 935 false statements in the two-year period. It has found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both. Since it is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida the study puts all blame on the Bush Administration. In short, the study argues that the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. The immediate outcomes of the study are that the people have started believing that they are been deceived and befooled. This has also exposed the weakness in journalistic commitment in inquiring and scrutinizing the information before passing them on to the public. Freedom of information has been questioned. This is not good for a country known for democracy. Distortion and adulteration of facts to justify a national headache as a national interest is quite embarrassing. The study in its conclusion says how the cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. This distortion of the fact was in whose interest-has been a question that strikes the civil society at present. It contradicts what Abraham Lincoln once said, "I'm a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts." This pretension, if it is true, however, in no way could be a justification that “nothing is wrong in love and war”.