Saddam's fall, not WMDs, is the point (Good Editorial)

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."

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.

The article promotes the idea that the invasion was justified on human rights grounds.

This is utterly false. It was the illegality of Saddam's regime in violating the U.N. sanctions and the peace treaty he signed with the American-led coalition of GW I. And the American government's post-9/11 threat assessment of him as a 'gathering threat', among other phrases used to describe the need to topple him.

Human rights were never a primary justifiction before the war. It is not legitimate to somehow suggest that human rights abuses justify Saddam's overthrow after the fact.

Human rights conditions in foreign lands are not a justification for pre-emptive war in the American tradition.

Well, only the insiders know for sure, but I think two things got Abe Rosenthal booted from his high position at the NY Times:

1. His embarrassing campaign to bring the worldwide persecution of Christians, especially in Communist and Muslim countries, to public attention.

2. His warning to his bosses that Maureen Dowd was out of control and a public embarrassment to the NY Times.

Plus we could add 3. He was a decent man. And decent men don't last long at the Times under the regime of Pinch Sulzberger. A few of them survived under Pinch's father; but no longer.

The article promotes the idea that the invasion was justified on human rights grounds. This is utterly false.

Some people do indeed believe that the war was justified because of human rights concerns. The author of this article, for example. To the author of this article, the human-rights thing convinces him that the war is justified.

It is nonsensical to call this "false", that's his opinion. (And the opinion of people like Christopher Hitchens and other lefty-hawks, generally.)

What would be false would be to imply that human-rights grounds was the reason the Bush administration decided upon war, and/or the argument they presented before Congress, and/or the reason that Congress authorized the war. I agree that human-rights concerns were not what motivated them to (respectively) advocate and authorize this action. It is, rather, a positive side benefit.

But I see no reason why some people can't look at this positive side benefit and then think to themselves "ok then, it was worth it". You seem to be trying to disallow this. Sorry, nice try, but people are allowed to have opinions about it.

It is not legitimate to somehow suggest that human rights abuses justify Saddam's overthrow after the fact.

What does this mean "not legitimate". If someone reads this article, and thinks "I see his point, I feel better about the war because of the human-rights abuses, ok then", what part of that process is "not legitimate"?

Why can't a person believe that the war was on balance justified because of the positive results it has had and presumably will have in the area of human-rights?

Note, I'm not saying this is why *I* believe the war was justified, I believe it was justified for other reasons.

Human rights conditions in foreign lands are not a justification for pre-emptive war in the American tradition.

In fact, I'm not sure there *is* such a thing as "pre-emptive war" in the American tradition. I will agree that the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq was a bold, controversial, and radical move, if that's what you're saying here. Best,

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.