He refused to cooperate with 17 United Nations resolutions, but it doesn’t mean
Saddam Hussein had anything to hide. He massacred tens of thousands of his own people, but it doesn’t mean he wanted to continue the killing or take it to other countries. Saddam funneled money to suicide bombers, but that doesn’t mean he actually supported the idea of terrorism or reveled in its casualties.

No, Saddam should have been left alone – trusted to abide by the universal law of honesty and respect for human life that had already marked his tenure.

At least, this is what some would have us believe today – that the United States would have been wiser to let a madman propelled by the love of bloodshed and the pursuit of perversion roam freely from his self-made throne of terror.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the world needed to be more vigilant about terrorism and rogue dictators aligned with malignant forces and involved in weapons proliferation. Saddam Hussein topped the international list of weapons violators.

By 2002 it was clear that the sanctions regime designed to prevent Saddam from re-arming had fallen apart and countries were trading openly with Iraq. There was also widespread international agreement that Hussein had not given up his efforts to acquire banned weapons. Iraq’s expulsion of UN weapons inspectors had made it virtually impossible to monitor his activities. Most governments around the world believed Hussein’s Iraq had not disarmed itself of the lethal weapons.

In early 2003, the UN confirmed that Iraq had hidden its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs, built missiles exceeding the range limits set by the Security Council, and failed to cooperate with inspectors. Instead of disarming, Iraq responded with false claims and empty declarations.
Two U.S. Administrations and the UN all agree that Hussein possessed a significant biological and chemical capability in 1998 when the inspectors were withdrawn. There is broad agreement that Hussein, different from any other leader, had proven himself capable of using these weapons for offensive purposes and not merely in a defensive posture.
We knew he was breaking the UN sanctions. We gave him due warning to change. We knew he was capable of such atrocities. And we were justified in liberating Iraqis from this monster.
I can tell you, from first-hand accounts, the horrors Saddam brought on his own people. Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction. On my first mission to Iraq this past August, I went to Al Hillah the site of a mass grave. I remember vividly, two women on their hands and knees picking through the broken bits of bone and body searching for their loved ones. Saddam was a destroyer of lives and a threat to all.
On that first trip, Iraqi citizens constantly reminded me that that they wanted America to stay, find Saddam and bring democracy to the region. We made a commitment to the Iraqis that we would liberate them from Saddam, and we have done so. We said we help them to have a constitution, and we have accomplished this task.
Let us not forget how impressive a feat the Iraqi constitution truly is. Just a year ago, dictator Saddam Hussein ruled, and now, Iraq is a burgeoning democracy. For a historical perspective, over a decade transpired between when the United States declared its independence to the time it proposed the U.S. Constitution.
What America and 30 other like-minded countries have accomplished in one year reaches far beyond the borders of Iraq and the removal of Saddam.

As the Saddam’s regime toppled, Iran – a country with a history of snubbing its nose at diplomacy – took one look at Saddam’s crumbled palaces and agreed to open its nuclear facilities for U.N. inspection, voluntarily suspending its uranium enrichment activities.

This is not a single-case scenario, either. Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi surrendered his weapons of mass destruction program as a direct result of our actions in Iraq. He has admitted as much publicly.

Following the Libyan developments, Pakistan’s Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan confessed to passing on nuclear enrichment technology, materials and nuclear weapon designs to Iran, Libya and North Korea. By stopping Dr. Khan’s disbursement of information, we are tearing a main artery of nuclear terrorism.

Even North Korea – a country whose communist dictator paralyzes surrounding countries with nuclear threats – now has the benefit of considering our actions in Iraq and the possibility of reward for cooperation before making any rash decisions.

While some skeptics continue to suggest that military action in Iraq was wrong, that preemption is never the answer, and that Iraqis would have been better off left to the will of Saddam Hussein, Americans who fervently dream of never seeing another tower tumble on our soil, and millions of others across the world who know firsthand the price of inaction, share a different opinion.

While some would leave us vulnerable to terrorism at the expense of dangerous illusions, we embrace with confidence the reality of an Iraqi people who awaken with optimism to a safer world – one without Saddam Hussein – for generations to come.