Thursday, March 08, 2007


I am tired of hearing those who supported the Iraq disaster stating that Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, France, and everyone around the world thought Saddam had WMD's as if that is an excuse for the ill fated invasion. While it may very well be true that others were just as wrong as the Bush Administration, it serves no purpose as a defense. The inference seems to be that if everyone else thought Saddam had WMD's then President Bush had a valid reason for war. Which, to go one more level down, rests itself on the argument that if Saddam had WMD's then it was in fact valid to invade the country.

Lets start with the first argument that if everyone believed Saddam had WMD's then the invasion was justified. The problem with that argument is obvious. Though these other countries and people believed that Saddam possessed these weapons, they clearly disagreed that the solution was an unprovoked invasion. So the fact that most agreed that the WMD's were there in itself raises the question why they all so strongly disagreed with The Bush Administration's solution. Rather than a valid defense for the invasion, this fact demonstrates that the Bush Administration was out of step with world views on the solution to a mutually agreed problem.

What we had here were facts and theories. The facts were that there was no clear evidence that the WMD's existed and that the inspectors received access to Iraq to Search for them. There was no rush and Saddam was cooperating with the UN and posed no threat to anyone. The theory was that he had WMD's particularly a Nuclear Weapons program. When confronted with the decison of what action t take. Most of the world wanted to act based on the facts. The Bush Administration ignored the facts and acted on the theory. Of course this argument rests on whether you believe that the WMD's issue was the impetus for war in the first place or merely a convenient ruse.

The second part of the argument infers that if Saddam had WMD's then an invasion was justified. This argument would justify invading 30 or more nations around the world. Are we to believe that Saddam would attack Israel or the United States with Mustard Gas and face nuclear retaliation? Further, are we to believe that the massive facilities necessary to enrich uranium could be hidden in Iraq? Either of these arguments are too preposterous to even consider. Saddam like Israel, Libya, Iran, Syria, and the United States would not use his weapons because the retaliation would be much too costly.

Before the invasion I felt the same as Bill Clinton, France, Ted Kennedy, and the rest of the world. Even if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, an invasion would make the world more dangerous rather than safer.

No comments: