Of WMD's and Men

Articles

Edward Abraham

Of WMD's and Men
June 3, 2003

"Where are the weapons of mass destruction?" That's now the call we hear from the political left in the latest effort to discredit the Bush administration in any manner possible. The idea here is if there are no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, the entire conflict with Saddam Hussein's brutal regime was unjustified and George Bush and his crew are either liars or incompetent--hopefully both, if you happen to be Tom Daschle.

This is an example of desperate grasping at straws for political gain in open defiance of common logic and reason. Now we are to retroactively justify an action based on the results of that action? This is equivalent to looking at the winning lotto balls after they are drawn and stating, "I knew I should have played those numbers!"

Ah, how easy life would be if everything were that simple. And the current Democrat Bush- bashers like to portray the idea that everything is that simple. Of course, we could have ousted Saddam without war; of course we can eliminate all potential terrorist acts without impinging on the rights of protected groups to any degree; of course we can turn the economy around without tax cuts; of course we can simultaneously act as the world's policeman and everyone's friend. We can do all these things. Democrats don't say exactly how we can accomplish these things, they just know Bush isn't doing it.

To clarify, President Bush and his administration made the case for war sufficiently such that the U.S. Congress voted its support last fall. The United Nations passed Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, which documents the acknowledgement of the world community that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD's in defiance of earlier UN resolutions and required Iraq to immediately disarm and present adequate evidence of this disarmament to the world. "Serious consequences," which clearly included military action, would be the result of noncompliance with 1441.

UN inspectors were once again allowed access to Iraq, only after the pressure created by Bush's case. Despite the onus being squarely on him, Saddam Hussein continued to play games with the inspection process, submitting a 12,000 page document full of lies and inaccuracies, having inspectors followed and watched at every turn, threatening his own people for too much cooperation, etc. Think of it, all Mr. Hussein had to do to avoid conflict and hold his power was to prove he had destroyed the weapons or that he never had them to begin with; yet, he chose to continue the deception and game-playing. Why? Why would he choose war and certain defeat over coming clean and maintaining his power? He would be free to continue raping and pillaging his people while skimming billions from oil sales. Is it possible he did indeed have the weapons? Is there a chance he was stalling while these WMD's were moved across borders and provided to our enemies?

Obviously, it no more makes sense for President Bush to justify the Iraq war after the fact, because WMD's have not yet been found, than it does for the lotto player to explain why he did not play the winning numbers. There was sufficient evidence the weapons did exist; there was a significant threat of transference of weapons to terrorist groups (it may have already happened in fact) and there were existing UN Resolutions which required enforcement. The fact we do not now find weapons does not change any of the above facts.

How convenient it is for people to now be the "Monday morning quarterbacks," and retrospectively critique actions and results. These are the same people who, of course, have no specific ideas of their own. Many of them are simply unaccustomed to someone like Bush who says what he means and takes action accordingly. They are more familiar with empty rhetoric and useless actions performed more for appearance than any truly impactful purpose.

And that is really a shame.

------------

Email Edward Abraham: eabra48463@aol.com

Comment on this column in the forum.
------------