Terry M. Neal points out in the Washington Post that without the rationale of WMDs, the White House and the President’s defenders have reverted to their fall-back humanitarian position — that the removal of Saddam Hussein was justification enough for the Iraq war. That’s a tradionally liberal perspective, souding a lot like the discredited Jimmy Carter “human rights” campaign of the late 1970s. Odd that when pressed to justify the war, Bush reverts to the very liberal ideas he, his father and their mentor Ronald Regan so vehemently oppose on principle.
The Administration now finds the human rights card a compelling rationale for the war — one with which the left finds it difficult to disagree.
As Neal concludes, whatever the case, the argument that it is a good thing that Hussein is gone and the argument that the Bush Administration may have lied to or misled the public on the issue of weapons of mass destruction “are not mutually exclusive. Both could be true. And if they are, the former fact won’t exonerate the President if the latter is true as well.”