Saddam's fall, not WMDs, is the point

NY Daily News ^ | Februari 06 2004 | A.M. Rosenthal

[knighthawk]

For months, most Americans have been saying they were sure President Bush would win reelection and make the fight against terrorism even stronger. I shared that sense of confidence that he would protect the U.S. and its allies - the ones America still trusts. Then one of the more astonishing moments in American history took place: David Kay, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, announced that he had not found any evidence of weapons of mass destruction there.

In an instant, the principal stated purpose for the invasion of Iraq - the growing threat to the Middle East and to the United States posed by those horrific weapons - seemed undone.

There were other reasons given for invading, of course - the toppling of the world's cruelest, most bloodthirsty tyrant being the best - but the WMDs were clearly the focus. Kay appeared to pull that rug out from under the administration's case.

But the Bush haters should hold their applause. This story is far from over. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was absolutely right in telling a Senate committee on Wednesday, "We may eventually find it [the WMD stockpile] in the months ahead." As the secretary pointed out, those weapons may be buried in a still unexplored area, they may have been smuggled into another country [think Syria] or they may have been destroyed just before the invasion.

CIA Director George Tenet smartly reinforced Rumsfeld's argument yesterday, stressing in his congressional testimony that the search for WMDs is "nowhere near 85% finished."

"The search must continue and it will be difficult," he said. Exactly right.

But while the question of Saddam Hussein's biological, chemical and nuclear weapons remains open, the rightness of America's cleansing the world of this monster is not debatable.

Something hideous had been taking place for decades in Iraq but received little or no attention. That nightmare is behind the Iraqi people now. What lies ahead is the hope of a free and democratic society. It won't be easy to achieve, of course, but the very existence of the possibility is something that the history books must record as one of America's great contributions.

I never saw what went on in the cells of Iraq, but in Asia and Africa, I have seen the broken bones and deliberately burned limbs and genitalia of prisoners, so I have a fair idea of what Saddam's carnage was like.

The official murders often added up to thousands daily. There may not have been any WMDs involved. But it was surely mass destruction. Case closed.

[knighthawk]

Ping

[Cap Huff]

"David Kay, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, announced that he had not found any evidence of weapons of mass destruction there."

I just pointed out on another thread that this is a gross distortion.

[AirBorn]

Hi.

[eureka!]

You can't be serious. If so, wait a couple more months...

[R. Scott]

And then a few more months and a few more months and a ...

[eureka!]

Even longer for the full picture. Didja see the SkyNews video of Saddam paying terrorists? That was yesterday. In this day of immediacy (and with the presstitutes and Rats' lies), cynicism is understandable....

[pawdoggie]

The point is certainly well taken. However, due to the unwillingness of Mssrs Bush and Rove to knock down the garbage thrown at them by the Democrat candidates, "until they have a nominee", the terms of the debate have shifted to "what did the President know, and when did he know it?" "Would you really like to see Saddam Hussein back in power?" is a more than valid argument, but it should have been vigorously advanced back when Howard Dean was the only established "anti-war" candidate, instead of waiting until Kerry, Edwards and Clark had the opportunity to de facto repudiate their votes in favor of the use of force in Iraq.