So the media is going after the Republican presidential candidates, as they always do, in an attempt to declare them “unworthy” for the presidency. The latest theme deals with the question: Knowing what we know now, should President Bush have invaded Iraq?
The question is posed with the understanding that the Iraq War was unjustified because no weapons of mass destruction were found. But let’s look at the facts.
There were 16 separate United Nations resolutions regarding Iraq, not just the one dealing with WMDs. Any of those other resolutions validated the invasion. We know Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons because he used them against his own people in the northern province. We know that in the weeks before the war began, the U.N. inspectors could not find an estimated 1,000 tons of chemical and biological weapons (including VX nerve agent) that the Iraqi government claimed were misplaced.
But isn’t it curious, while the Democrats and the major news media continue to claim that Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons in Iraq, the Pentagon has released an apology to the American soldiers who fought there, accepting responsibility for not better protecting those same soldiers from being exposed to chemical weapons during the war. But if Saddam did not have chemical weapons, how were our soldiers exposed? Just asking.
Never miss a local story.