We keep hearing that Iraq was a mistake, we shouldn’t have
invaded, it was unjustified, it’s an illegal and immoral war, it’s
Bush’s war, we should pull out and apologize for Bush’s “mistake”,
etc. It just goes on and on from Bush critics on the Left and now in
Congress, they are talking about pulling the financial rug out from
under our troops before the mission is complete.
On September 6, 2004, John Kerry said:
“I would not have done just one thing differently than the
president on Iraq, I would have done everything differently than the
president on Iraq…. You've about 500 troops here, 500 troops there
and it's American troops that are 90 percent of the combat
casualties and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of
the cost of the war. It's the wrong war, in the wrong place at
the wrong time.”
This was far from an original quote by Kerry but he knew it would
sound good to his liberal antiwar supporters. These words were
originally from General Omar Bradley when on April 11, 1951 during
the Korean War, Bradley was speaking to Congress against expanding
the war to China when he said:
“Red China is not the powerful nation seeking to dominate the
world. Frankly, in the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this
strategy would involve us in the wrong war, at the wrong place,
at the wrong time, and with the wrong
On October 13, 1960 during his presidential campaign, John F.
Kennedy in discussing America’s role in Vietnam made the following
“Should I become President… I will not risk American lives…
by permitting any other nation to drag us into the wrong war at
the wrong place at the wrong time through an unwise commitment
that is unwise militarily, unnecessary to our security and
unsupported by our allies.”
Well Kennedy did become president but apparently forgot his
campaign promise. He did expand our role in Vietnam and with
continuing escalation of the war by Lyndon Johnson, led to the
deaths of more than 50,000 American soldiers over a 10 year period
because of combat and target limitations placed on our forces by the
Johnson Administration and the Democrat Congress. Democrats must
have thought this was good for America because now they want Iraq to
be just like it. History does repeat itself, at least when Democrats
are involved in war.
Vietnam could have easily been won in half the time without the
interference from Washington Democrats. We could have bombed Hanoi
out of existence. We could have bombed and destroyed the Viet Cong
supply trails. We could have waged a war to win with overwhelming
force but instead we engaged in a limited war so as not to offend
the Communists. Even then, Democrats weren’t sure which side they
Now Congress is trying to do the same thing all over again in
Iraq with Democrats at the helm again. But this time it’s not enough
that they just want to limit the war by opposing “the Surge”, they
want to cut the funding to end it just like they did with Vietnam.
It’s clear to most observers now which side Democrats are really on.
“It’s the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time - but
it’s good that Saddam is gone.” It’s good that Saddam is gone but
the war is wrong? Not one Democrat has stood up and suggested that
Saddam should still be in power, yet they tell us the war was wrong.
Their convoluted logic is confusing, not to mention
self-contradictory. The only explanation for such incoherence is
that the arguments they have constructed are blatantly hypocritical.
Some even suggest that Saddam should have been dealt with
diplomatically, not with war. It’s most interesting how Democrats
are able to forget and ignore history, even recent history. Was not
12 years of failed UN diplomacy enough? Did not President Bush
ultimately ask Saddam and his sons to leave Iraq to avoid war? Were
not all diplomatic efforts to avoid war exhausted before no other
options remained on the table? Should diplomacy end only after
America is attacked?
In 2002, Democrats agreed that Saddam must be removed. They also
agreed, through the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution of 2002” in Congress that the President should use
all necessary force to accomplish that mission.
Now they ask: “But didn’t we have Saddam “contained” with weapons
inspectors in the country?” Frankly no. It has become quite clear
through audio tapes and captured documents after the invasion that
Saddam was manipulating the inspectors and preventing them from
inspecting and finding WMDs in addition to scamming the Food for Oil
program while using and hiding the money for future WMD
On behalf of the Iraq Survey Group after the invasion, David Kay
reported to the 911 Commission:
"With regard to biological warfare activities, which has
been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are
uncovering significant information -- including research and
development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi
Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and
deliberate concealment activities."
"There are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage
Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and
hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets,
aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs,
approximately 120 still remain unexamined."
"While searching for retained weapons, ISG teams have
developed multiple sources that indicate that Iraq explored the
possibility of CW production in recent years, possibly as late as
This, of course, was long after UN inspectors had left Iraq with
little success of finding anything while Saddam was still in
With the help of France, Germany, and Russia in the UN, the
inspectors would be out of Iraq shortly and sanctions would
have been lifted leaving Saddam free to develop and redevelop his
WMDs, which leads us to the question that nobody seems to be asking:
where would we be today were Saddam still in power in Iraq?
By 2007, weapons inspectors would have been long gone from Iraq
as would the sanctions. Our intelligence information though, would
still be the same as it was in 2003. Saddam would still be a “grave
and growing threat to American security and to the region”.
Even if Saddam's old stockpiles of WMD were all gone, he would have
by now, reconstructed his WMD programs and weapons.
Americans would still be worried about when Saddam’s WMDs would
arrive and detonate in American cities, whether they be directly
from agents of Saddam or foreign terrorists supplied by Saddam. The
inevitable would merely have been postponed to a time of Saddam’s
choosing only the stakes would be higher.
The primary, no, the only argument against the invasion of Iraq
is based on the contention that “no WMD were found in Iraq”. Of
course this statement is false in the first place because in
addition to other extensive evidence, over 500 canisters of chemical
weapons materials were found in Iraq. To my knowledge that fact has
never been reported by the mainstream media. It should have been the
headline on the front page of every newspaper in the country.
But even without this, the statement ignores all of the other
charges over a 12 year period against Saddam that justified the war
including the shooting at our planes over the “no fly zone”, failure
to comply with the 1991 ceasefire agreement, and refusal to comply
with 17 UN resolutions to account for, and destroy, the WMD
stockpiles. To this day, those WMDs are still unaccounted for. It’s
interesting to note that Democrats never ask “where did they go?”.
Shouldn’t we all want to know the answer to that?
There are two schools of thought on this question. Some say they
didn’t exist and were all destroyed during the 1990s, but there is
no evidence of that. The other is that they were transported out of
the country to two locations in Syria and a third in the Bekka
Valley of Lebanon, currently under the control of Hezbollah. There
is ample evidence of this including testimony by Saddam's own Air
Force General, Georges Sada.
To answer the question of where would we be today without the
invasion of Iraq, we can toss out the later scenario however,
because were it not for the pending invasion and delays in trying to
get the UN to go along, those WMDs would not have been moved out of
Iraq and would still be there, assuming that they did exist. They
may have even been used in a war of Saddam’s choosing by now.
Considering the former scenario (WMDs didn’t exist before the
invasion), how would we know that without actually being there? The
fact is, we wouldn’t. We didn’t know that in 2003 and we wouldn’t
know it today. Saddam never admitted to having destroyed them and he
led the world to believe he still had them. That wouldn’t have
changed. Iraq would still be considered a “grave and growing
threat”, and concerns about Saddam’s WMDs would only have only grown
larger since 2003.
In other words, without the invasion, Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy,
and the rest of the Democrats would still be contending that Saddam
has WMDs and has become a critical threat to American security. They
would all be asking “Why hasn’t President Bush done anything about
it”? We would still be right where we were in 2002 on the issue of
The bottom line is that if you ignore all of the other
justifications for the war, the matter of WMDs is not a deciding
issue on the invasion of Iraq. If Democrats insist Iraq was the
wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, then they are also
accepting the premise that Saddam would be in possession of WMD and
we shouldn’t be worried about it.
It follows then that we shouldn’t be worried about No. Korea and
Iran developing nuclear bombs, or that terrorists will eventually be
here in our country killing our citizens and destroying our
If Democrats are right about Iraq, then Americans have nothing to
worry about from Islamic radicals who want nothing other than the
destruction of Israel and America, and they can be dealt with
through diplomacy and negotiations. If Republicans are right, then
we have a lot to worry about, especially from Democrats in Congress
and the prospect of having one of them in the White House in 2009.