As most who have kept up with current events know, no WMD (weapons of mass destruction) were found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. However, this does not necessarily mean there were none there to begin with. You might say to yourself that this sounds very unlikely, but if one country is brought into the equation, the possibility of President Bush being right becomes very real; that country is Syria.
It is important to remember that the “WMD” label does not only apply to nuclear weapons, but to chemical and biological ones as well. Syria has the largest stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in the world; where did they come from? The answer is held in a book written by a former Iraqi general under Saddam Hussein, Georges Sada, who wrote a comprehensive account of how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard used passenger planes to transport the WMD’s to other countries (including Syria) months before the invasion by the United States. A July, 2012 Breitbart report gives more details into this account. A link to the article will be posted below.
For many, this may come as a shock; the idea that Bush was probably right all along about the Iraqi threat. Did we find what we were looking for? Obviously we did not; but was the invasion justified? If the general’s book confirms American intelligence, then absolutely. But the American population has, in large part, likely never heard of this possibility. This is in no small part due to the very left leaning mainstream media. Knowing that the mainstream media (ABC, CBS, CNN etc.) were extremely harsh on any mistake that the Bush administration made during, or even after his presidency, it comes as no surprise that this discovery was not only under-reported, but not even addressed. Seeing that Bush was probably right about Iraq would be a huge blow to the left leaning media, therefore, they could not report it as it would not help their left-wing agenda.
Knowing that the majority of Iraq’s WMD are most likely in Syria, saying that the invasion of Iraq failed would not be completely unjustified. The war in Iraq obviously could have been handled better, as almost any operation can be, but the fact remains that President Bush believed that the Iraqis had WMD, and that they could be a threat to the United States and its allies. It is important to remember that President Bush did not walk into the Oval Office with a focus on foreign policy, but events like 9/11 dealt him that hand, and he had no choice but to focus on defending the United States from newly realized terrorist threats.
For all the criticisms of Bush, from the left and the right, can we not both agree that (in wake of 9/11) he did prevent any more attacks under his watch? For all that his administration knew, Iraq could have been another threat lurking on the horizon. Keep this in mind though; if the United States had fully finished the job in 1991, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, there probably would not have been a 2003 invasion into Iraq, as Saddam would have been ousted already.
Not finishing the job was a mistake of Bush Sr.’s administration, and his son, and thousands of American soldiers would have to deal with the consequences on not finishing the job in its entirety. When it comes to important jobs, it is better to not start it if you do not have the will to completely finish it, as down the line, others will pay for the unfinished job. But was President Bush right about Iraq? This newly found evidence seems to point to that conclusion.
Breitbart Report- July 14, 2012 “Where Did Syria’s Chemical Weapons Come From?” http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/07/14/And-where-did-syrias-chemical-weapons