'Bush Lied' Argument Fails
It has been nearly a year since Coalition forces liberated Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein from power. It's fair to say the campaign has had its share of ups and downs, but is going as well (if not better) than most analysts expected. War is never pretty, but in an imperfect world, it is sometimes necessary.
By now most of us have heard David Kay's statements that he does not believe large stockpiles of WMDs will be found. To hear most media outlets and Democratic operatives you would think that was the only thing Kay said, but it wasn't. Kay also said that Saddam had the capability to produce biological weapons. He said there was evidence that some weapons may have been moved to Syria. He also said President Bush did not lie, and that the war was justified regardless of the absence of WMDs.
If President Bush did lie, he couldn't have been the only one. The argument that Bush lied claims he did so to gain a political advantage. If this is true, why would Tony Blair join in? Blair certainly didn't get any political boost from joining the Coalition.
Democratic primary frontrunner John Kerry has charted enough positions on war in Iraq to make Jenna Jameson proud. While he today claims that Bush has "misled" and "exaggerated," he voted for the resolution authorizing Bush to go to war. In 1997, Kerry had a very different take, "So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation."
Ted Kennedy, who now claims Bush concocted the war from his Texas ranch, said this in 2002, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
In 1998, Bill Clinton said, "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country," opined Al Gore, September, 2002.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had this to say in 1998, "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
So if Bush lied, then Tony Blair, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Nancy Pelosi would have all had to have been in on the conspiracy. So would the United Nations and French President Jacques Chirac, who has also spoken of Iraq's weapons programs.
Let's assume that Kay is correct, and no WMDs are ever found in Iraq. Evidence has been found that Saddam had the means to create such weapons. Saddam has made his hatred of America known for years. Thus he had the motive and the means to produce WMDs. Additionally, Saddam's ties to Palestinian terror groups have long been documented. He also attempted to assassinate a former U.S. President. Is it then logical to claim he posed no threat to America?
I would argue that a free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Arab world is in the best interests of America, and the world, not to mention the Iraqi people themselves. Some will argue that America cannot remove all tyrants in the world. Fair enough. However, because we cannot remove ALL of them, does that mean we shouldn't remove ANY of them (especially if they are a threat to our national security)? Just because we can never end poverty, does that mean we should never help poor people?
Has anyone noticed that terrorist attacks in Israel are considerably fewer now than a year ago? The same terrorists who proclaim "death to Israel" wish a similar fate on America. By removing a tyrant from power, who paid the families of suicide bombers $25,000 (quite a considerable amount for poverty stricken Palestinians), we were acting in our best interests, and the world's.
Those who argue that Bush lied, or that Saddam Hussein never posed a threat to America are too blinded by their ideology to see the truth. To those who care to know, the truth is evident: The world is a better (and safer) place if Saddam is not in it.
- John Brown is a senior in political science at the University of Tennessee @ Knoxville. Contact him at johnnyb325@aol.com, or visit www.johnnorrisbrown.com. This column originally appeared in the
February 5, 2004 edition of The Daily Beacon, available here.