For some time now, the world has heard an ever-changing tune from President George W. Bush in regards to the Iraq crisis, so his last about face should have not come as any surprise. Just last week, before an international audience, in a spurious attempt at diplomacy, Mr. Bush emphatically stated that "regardless of the whip count he would call for a United Nation Security Council vote" in regards to the crisis. Mr. Bush went on to say in that address that "it was time for the nations of the world to show their cards." However, on March 17, with the US brokered proposal facing an overwhelming defeat by the majority of 15 members of the Security Council (excluding a threatened veto), Mr. Bush made a de facto declaration of war, by giving Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq; a condition that has already been vehemently rejected by the Iraqi government. Now the White House states that America will invade Iraq even if Saddam left the country and, thus, it is clear that Mr. Bush simply is not a man of his word.

One of Mr. Bush's strongest and oft repeated reasons for disarming Iraq is to prevent Iraq from "putting weapons in the hands of terrorists". On its face, this is a noble and just reason for an invasion of Iraq. However, recently declassified US government documents clearly show that both former presidents Ronald Regan and George H. W. Bush authorized the sale of poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, including anthrax and bubonic plague, to Iraq (all of which was well known to Mr. Bush). In lieu of these verified facts, it is quite ironic and hypocritical that several present members of Mr. Bush's administration instrumental in the prior adminstrations' selling to Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) are now the most ardent supporters for an invasion of Iraq. In fact, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld met personally with Hussein in December of 1983, and never spoke against Iraq's use of WMDs (as he does daily now).

How can Mr. Bush claim to be just in protecting America and the world by disarming Iraq now when America (through his father and Ronald Reagan) was the guilty party in arming Iraq with WMDs in the first place? The Bible speaks very clearly to the danger of such hypocrisy. The book of Proverbs (6:27) states: "Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?". An even more sobering warning is given in the book of Galatians (6:7): "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Do the Christians in America now applauding Mr. Bush's ultimatum to Iraq honestly think that God will not judge this country for its role in supplying WMDs to a madman?

The Bible tells us that a long time ago King David thought that he could cover his adultery with Bathsheba simply by having her husband, Uriah killed. Today, the madness of King George would have us to believe that blowing up Iraq is "protecting the American people". Friends let us not be so naive and foolish. Saddam Hussein is no greater a threat to America now than he was when America sold Iraq the WMDs in the first place. The clear and present danger that we now face is the madness of blindly following the leadership of America, which claims to be Christian, in thinking that God will excuse and turn a blind eye to sin. Think again.

Reginald C. Norman, Jr.

March 19, 2003