A columnist in The American Spectator in June remarked that he departed from the view of much of his former colleagues at National Review by opposing the Iraq War, and he did so largely because he felt the case had not been made with certainty for the presence of WMD in Iraq. While this article made some excellent points and helpful critiques of both the war effort and basic political courtesy, it betrayed a misconception that most Americans currently make regarding the President's rationale for war.

No, I will not say it was for humanitarian reasons (as much as I would like to say so), nor will I make the ridiculous charge that it was economically-motivated (How much does a war cost? Ask Congress.) Bush apologists who make the former claim are being naive and Bush-bashers who make the latter claim are being cynical and vindictive.

Rather, I would boil this down to a splitting of hairs when it comes to language and intentions. President Bush and his allies clearly stated that they believed that WMD's were in Iraq. Many have taken that fact and run with it in outrageous directions. Let it be said here: There is a distinction to be made regarding the President's claim. Our motive for war in Iraq was not the WMD's themselves, but the assumption that they were there.

This is where the additional body of reasons come into play.
1) Iraq had an arsenal of WMD's in the past.
2) Iraq had used their arsenal of WMD's in the past.
3) Iraq not only used WMD's in war (against Iran), but against Iraqi civilians.
4) Iraq posed a threat to the region (invaded Kuwait and peppered Israel with missiles precipitating and during the Gulf War).
5) If 1,2,3,and 4 are true (which they are), then Iraq had to be verifiably disarmed.

After the Gulf War, this was the thinking of the international community. That is why the U.N. passed resolutions mandating weapon inspectors who could verify at all times that Iraq did not have WMD. With their track record, we had to assume the worst and act against Iraq if they even allowed their WMD program to become an unknown quantity. Yet, this is what they did in the 12 of so years in between the two Gulf wars. They were so deceptive and at times openly obstinate to U.N. inspectors, that the assumption could reasonably be made that they were attempting to reconstitute their program. Inspectors have even testified to that fact. Do we forget that this was the rationale used by President Clinton for bombing Iraq for a period of time in the late-90's?

Not only this, but the accountability structures were breaking down. Sanctions were not effective, as many of the participating countries (France, Germany, Russia, China, etc.) were doing back-channel trading with Iraq. In addition, Iraq was become less cooperative with U.N. inspectors by the month. Inspectors were often diverted from facilities and scientists, sometimes stalled while materials and people could be relocated, and even at times refused permission to investigate certain sites/people.

These circumstances clearly gave President Bush the right to assume that Iraq was reconstituting its WMD program, and it therefore gave him the obligation to act. In fact, the case could be made that the bombing under Clinton should have been a full-scale war instead. To reiterate, if we allow that the assumption of WMD could be the basis for an act of force, then the case for the war still stands.

And if we make that allowance, than we have no business accusing the current administration of deception. We must respect the fact that the Bush Administration made an assumption the basis of war (and rightly so). The ensuing evidence of WMD need not verify their assumption. If the assumption was allowed to be made by Iraqi noncompliance, than the case for war was established.