WMD uncertainty

After more than a year of justifying the necessity of a preemptive strike against Iraq, President W. Bush and his administration has backed away from their primary claim – the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

If the Bush administration continues to separate itself from the original claims there will be more than just the upcoming presidential election to worry about.

The administration decided to back away from its long-standing position after former Chief U.S. Weapons Inspector David Kay recently announced that there is no evidence of WMD.

Once Kay’s claims were placed before the administration, it was said that inspectors should continue their work in Iraq so the truth can be learned.

Whenever the existence of WMD in Iraq is questioned the government has said with certainty that weapons of mass destruction were present. Thus making Saddam Hussein an eminent threat to the region and the world.

By retreating from the original stance, the Bush administration is now in a position where it will be forced to justify its attack on Iraq. Prior to the initial strike on Iraq, Bush’s initiative was questioned because the planned strike would set a dangerous precedent for declaring war.

As a consequence of Bush’s regime change in Iraq, countries may now potentially attack nations they see as a threat.

Without the proof of these weapons of mass destruction there is no justification present for the war on Iraq. This means that other countries may not need verifiable reason to attack another country.

Beyond helping to repair international stability, the Bush administration must also provide an explanation to coalition forces and American families who have lost loved ones because of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Americans are owed an explanation for the casualties that have been suffered to uncover these nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

Jason E. Hutchins for the Editorial board.