The Congressmen are obviously responsible for making laws for their country but are also taking decisions on international affairs, which, more often than not, have very serious implications for other countries of the world. The very unfortunate examples are Afghanistan and Iraq. But as it seems, the people in responsible administrative positions provide wrong information to the people of America. This is what was clear from the recent remark of John Kerry, the Democratic front runner in the Presidential race. He said Bush Administration and Vice President Dick Cheney "ought to be held accountable for using the weapons of mass destruction argument…..Dick Cheney and others in the administration misled the American people with respect to the true status of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

Now the situation is very clear on Iraq's WMD. David Kay, the former US chief weapons Inspector, resigned saying - Iraq did not have any WMD which was the main basis for invasion of Iraq. Even in his State of the Union address President Bush asserted that "had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programmes would continue to this day". While Bush was making assertions about the existence of WMD, Senator Kennedy was shaking his head clearly showing his disapproval. It was utterly surprising that President of America was still telling wrong things to the Americans. Clearly the Americans are not well informed. Anyway, the President alone cannot be blamed. Those who provided the materials must be fully responsible for this.

Under heavy pressure from the senior politicians of the US Senate, President Bush has finally agreed to set up a bipartisan Commission to find out the truth. President Bush has also been lately saying that he would like to know the truth, but for the Iraqis and the world as a whole, it was already too late -- destruction of Iraq is complete and as it appears, the damage to the US Republican administration is also near complete. The Democrats will certainly take the political advantage out of it.

Here comes in the assertions of Prime Minister Blair of the UK that Iraq had not only WMD, but these could also be activated within 45 minutes. He also asserted in the Parliamentary Committee's hearing saying he had "no doubt at all" about Saddam's WMD. Prime Minister Blair also misled his nation. But the British people are better informed and this is why there were massive demonstrations in Britain against Iraq invasion. Though Lord Hutton has cleared Blair of any wrong doing on Davis Kelly's death (majority of the British people have termed Hutton report as "whitewash"), Blair cannot shrug off his huge responsibility for giving wrong information to the British people about the WMD and his assertion of 45 minutes. Where is Blair's "moral stand" now when there is no WMD "at all" in Iraq?

Of course, the Intelligence communities of Britain and America are responsible for proving the wrong information based on second or even third hand intelligence, but it was the duty of the Prime Minister of a country to have them doubly checked before giving out such wrong information with so robust assertion to his people. It's not only informing his own people wrongly, he sent his army to invade a sovereign country and virtually destroy it. There have been demands from the lawmakers of Britain too for an Independent Inquiry on the way intelligence reports were prepared and used for the purpose of invading Iraq. Like Bush, Blair also had to agree to an Independent Inquiry.

Let there be parallel actions -- Saddam facing justice in Iraq (Saddam's trial must wait till a credible government is established in Iraq) and Bush, Blair and their associates facing independent inquiries under their legal systems. The truth must be established and no white wash or eye-wash.

It was rightly pointed out by a British Parliamentarian that there were mistakes in intelligence reports at both sides of the Atlantic. There are "special relationships" between Britain and America but it seems strange though that there is "special relationships" across the Atlantic even in making mistakes! This joint mistake should undoubtedly be taken note of by the Commissions on both sides of the Atlantic and it is likely that here the Commissions would detect some sort of political manoeuvring which Lord Hutton failed to detect.

In the World Social Forum that was held recently in Mumbai there were serious criticisms against Bush and America. One American participant, Kathleen Sheehan, felt so embarrassed that she said, " Sometimes I wanted to borrow one of those burqas and just cover my American face." So this is what Bush has given to the Americans. They even feel embarrassed to show their faces to the people of the world. Faces apart, American do not even appear to be safe any where in the world. Their embassies often remain closed for days in various parts of the world. Even within Americas the Red, Orange terror alerts are also common. The cancellation of flights across Atlantic is a very regular phenomenon that dislocates the programmes of the travelling people. The aircraft are required to carry even armed marshals during flights. The visitors to America have to give finger prints and face so much of embarrassing questioning at the entry point that many have started reducing their visits to America the land the people used to admire so much for its civil liberties, education, research, technology and what not. It's really sad.

The Human Rights Body has also given its views on Iraq invasion and said there was no reason for even "humanitarian intervention" Arundhuti Roy said while speaking at WSF in Mumbai that Bush should suffer the same fate as Saddam has. Anyway, there is no power on earth to do this to Bush but the US itself and the world have to have the legal system to deal with such "arrogant" and "reckless" (the words of John Kerry about Bush) people so that no sovereign country and its people would ever face such disaster through unilateral military actions. Even a couple of days ago Dick Cheney said in the World Economic Forum in Davos that military action will be taken, if necessary, to establish democracy. Such statement really means democracy to be established through dictatorship. Which is more important? A particular variety of democracy or peace? From where does Dick Cheney get such abominable strength? It's the war machine that includes vast nuclear arsenal. This is why it is necessary to bring some balance in the stockpiles of world's war machines. Therefore, one does not see any justification for NPT giving unilateral advantage to only some counties. It is clear that if nuclear powers do not use nuclear bombs, nobody else would do it. The countries designated by President Bush as "axis of evil" and also others know that they will be finished if they first use n-bomb. So, let others have them and then the unilateralism will be over.

Muslehuddin Ahmad is a former Secretary and Ambassador and presently the Vice Chancellor (designate) of Presidency University.