WMD are not the only reason for the war in Iraq
Observer Viewpoint | Wednesday, January 19, 2005
The University of Illinois has a pretty good basketball team this year. After Chuck Prochaska’s column “No WMD? So What?,” I have to guess that this is a reflection of extremely low admissions standards. Prochaska demonstrates an amazingly limited grasp of the debate over the war in Iraq. His lack of knowledge and lack of concern for opposing viewpoints is incredible. He argues that weapons of mass destruction were not the reason for the war but rather lists several atrocities of Saddam Hussein’s regime as the real cause. In fact, if I remember correctly, though two years ago is becoming a bit foggy, the assertion that there were weapons of mass destruction was the main justifying reason for invading Iraq. If the historical atrocities were enough, what was the use of Colin Powell testifying to there existence before the U.N.?
By far my favorite part of Prochaska’s article, though, is the part where he asserts that, despite the fact that no weapons were found, they were there. Despite the efforts of a U.N. search team before the war and our illustrious U.S. army afterward both of whom failed to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction, Hussein most certainly did have them. Prochaska is sure. In fact, if the liberal media wouldn’t cover things up, plain Americans like us would know about them right now instead of hearing these made up reports. This terrible piece of writing and argument deserves no place in an intelligent debate.