by David Pipkin

Created on: March 08, 2007   Last Updated: April 19, 2007

I want to issue a challenge to everyone who thinks that Iraq was a mistake to read this entire article with an open mind. There is no agenda here; simply an objective presentations of the facts.

REASON ONE: POST 9-11, BI-PARTISAN VIEW OF SADDAM HUSSEIN AS A THREAT TO U.S.

We had just been hit by terrorist on our own soil. This cannot be over-emphasized. After September 11, democrats in Washington had scrambled trying to find a way to lay blame for 9-11 at the feet of GW Bush.

In President Bush's speech on October 7, 2002, where he laid out the case for the threat in Iraq, he cited many reasons for not trusting Iraq.

Among those reasons (the quotes are directly from George W Bush's speech):

1) Iraq's history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.

2) We could not verify whether Iraq had destroyed its WMD because they were not allowing or thwarting inspections.

3) They had not stopped all support for terrorist groups, as per the UN agreement.

4) Saddam is a "murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people," and he, "holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States."

5) In 1995, the regime admitted that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents.

6) Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas.

7) We know that Saddam has financed "suicide bombers" in acts of terror.

8) Iraq and al Qaeda had high-level contacts that go back a decade.

9) "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making, poisons and deadly gases."

10) "Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

11) "The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception."

12) "I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein."

Here is an additional point to consider: Let's say that Bush had listened to liberals, and he had decided not to go into Iraq. Ask yourself, what would have happened if we were hit again, and it was discovered that Iraq was somehow involved - if Iraq had funded it, organized it, or even worse, provided the terrorists with sarin gas to maximize the damage? Imagine something like 9/11 happening again, but this time, the terrorists have hefty doses of sarin gas, of which Iraq was in possession, which we will come to next.

The point here is that, given the documented position of every Congress-man and woman on Saddam Hussein, to not have acted against Iraq would have left Bush in an indefensible position.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next Page >>