The case for operation Iraqi freedom.

A year after the elimination of Saddam Hussein's murderous dictatorship, shortly before the Coalition Provisional Authority hands over power to the Iraqi people, and with violence in Iraq on the upswing, how do the Bush administration's arguments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom hold up?

Critics assert that those arguments amount to two lies--Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed an imminent threat, and Iraq cooperated with Al Qaeda in executing the 9/11 attacks. In fact, the administration put forth five main arguments in favor of military action. Those arguments were advanced by the administration with varying intensity and frequency--and they hold up, separately and together, reasonably well.

First, in the run-up to war, the Bush administration highlighted the intolerable danger Saddam's WMD posed. Its claims were consistent with Clinton administration claims dating back to 1998, and both were rooted in the best available intelligence. Although we now know that the intelligence was flawed, the Kay report confirmed dozens of Iraqi weapons programs and documented Saddam's intention to restart programs when possible. Dick Cheney's assertion in the summer of 2002 that the risk of inaction in Iraq was greater than the risk of action was debatable. But based on the evidence at hand, and the terrifying new realities September 11, 2001, made manifest, it was a reasonable judgment.

Second, on September 21, 2001, in a nationally televised speech to a joint session of Congress, President Bush declared that the war on terror extended to terrorist networks around the world and to "any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism." Although a link to 9/11 has not been established, Saddam's trafficking in terror is incontestable--among other bloody ventures Iraq had been, until the ...