By Roger Propst|
Recently, columns have been written stating that our President based the military action liberating Iraq on lies. The premise of this position relates to the pre-war Iraqi threat concerning nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the fact these weapons have not been located as of yet.
These assertions come from the same folks who vehemently opposed military action from the outset of discussions on the subject. I have yet to see a legitimate alternative proposed by this group to alleviate this threat and liberate 24 million people from the tyrannical regime of Saddam and his sons.
I presume that saying President Bush lied concerning the presence of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in Iraq, means there were in fact, no such weapons there. I don't remember anyone in the Administration saying we were in imminent threat of a nuclear attack by Iraq, but rather Saddam was continuing to pursue that end. It should be remembered that it took four years after the 1991 military action to verify the existence of an active nuclear program, even though Iraq denied its existence to the end. As to chemical and biological weapons, the United Nations Inspectors, a unanimous United Nations Security Council, yes, even France, Germany, and Russia agreed Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and must disarm; remember U.N. Resolution 1441. In just the past few days, former President Clinton called into a news talk show and stated unequivocally that weapons of mass destruction were present in Iraq when he left office. He also chided his fellow party members to "move on" in continuing to harp on the reasons for war, and deal with the situation as is.
The fact of the matter is that enough chemical and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of people could be hidden in an area no bigger than most people's bedrooms, and Iraq is a country the size of the state of California. We have been in Iraq for 90 days, and this group thinks Iraqis should be having elections, everyone back to work, all infrastructures repaired, and oil flowing to pay for everything. I would hate to see how they would have reacted to World War II if had it been reported on an hour by hour, day by day basis, as today's conflicts are. These weapons will be found, or evidence of their destruction or movement out of the country on the eve of war will be documented.
To believe there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the conflict requires one to accept many premises that totally defy logical reasoning. I will discuss just three of those in this column.
Saddam Hussein can be believed, our own President, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain cannot. Yeah, right. President Bush would deliberately lie and deceive the American public about something he knew would be exposed upon defeating Saddam's Iraq, a result never in doubt by anyone. British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in the face of overwhelming skepticism of his own people, would also do such a stupid thing; pure nonsense.
Saddam Hussein, whose only claim to importance, was as dictator of Iraq, and who valued power and wealth more than anything else, would have allowed his regime to be destroyed, placed his own safety in jeopardy and that of his family, to protect weapons he did not possess, is sheer lunacy.
Saddam would have practiced his policy of lies and deceit all through the 1990's, hiding his weapons from U.N. Inspectors, and then interfering with their inspections to the point they were withdrawn by the U.N., and then as soon as they left in 1998, he went out and destroyed all these weapons unilaterally with no independent verification by anyone; once again, sheer lunacy. The only thing that kept him in power was his weapons, the terror inflicted upon his people, and the fear his Arab neighbors had of him.
A logical thinking person would not come to the conclusions that our President and the Coalition lied to us to justify the invasion of Iraq. The gathering of intelligence is not an exact science, and mistakes can be made; however the facts of the situation do not support an assertion of lies. By the way, the comments about British Intelligence not believing the trailers located in Iraq, were mobile biological labs, flies in the face of all the hooey made about British Intelligence and the now famous 16 words in this year's State of the Union Address. I guess that is selective acceptance when it fits your needs.
I think the 'L' word is spelled P O L I T I C S, pure and simple.