Not a bad Cleveland appearance, but please, Mr. President, spell out the good reasons for liberating Iraq

In Cleveland today, President Bush gave a thoughtful speech on what is at stake in Iraq. He does seem to know where he’s going. But again, he forgets where this Iraq war came from.

It began with Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, the U.S.-led expulsion of Saddam’s forces in 1991 and the historic 1991 cease-fire agreement.

Under that agreement, which was made international law under several U.N. resolutions, Saddam was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people, to end his support for terrorists, to return 600 Kuwaiti prisoners of war and one American POW, and to cooperate fully and immediately with U.N. arms inspectors.

Cease-fire violations. Violation of any of those cease-fire terms would amount to an act of war. And Saddam violated all of the terms. On top of that, he violated U.N. sanctions and siphoned billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

Yet today President Bush couldn’t remember any of those reasons for removing Saddam.

In the Cleveland audience, a man who clearly regrets Saddam’s overthrow asked Bush to explain the 2003 invasion of Iraq when the “three main reasons” for invading turned out not to be true.

The “three main reasons,” according to this man:

1. Saddam’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.

2. Saddam’s sponsorship of the terrorists who attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001.

3. Saddam’s purchase of nuclear materials from Niger.

What was President Bush’s response to the man’s fake three reasons? Bush didn’t even point out that they weren’t the three main reasons. Instead, he said concluding Saddam still had WMDs was an intelligence failure. But did Bush tell the man that it wasn’t the world’s job to prove Saddam had WMDs, it was Saddam’s job to prove he had destroyed them? No.

Of course, Bush and his team did speak often, in late 2002 and early 2003, of Saddam having WMDs. So fine, the president had a responsibility to explain the failure, since March 2003, to find any major stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons in Iraq.

Saddam and Sept. 11. Bush then made his only strong point to his questioner. He said the man was wrong to imply Bush had ever claimed Saddam had a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush has said, and he said again today, that the attacks taught him to take emerging threats more seriously. As far as “sponsoring” terrorists related to al-Qaida, Bush didn’t say more today, but there is some evidence (still disputed) that Saddam aided Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq and there is strong evidence that Saddam funded the al-Qaida-related Abu Sayyaf terrorists in the Phillipines.

Bush ignored the man’s falsehood about a claim that Saddam bought uranium from Niger, and that was a softball Bush should not have passed up. He missed a great chance here to enlighten his audience, because Bush never said Saddam had bought uranium from Niger. Bush had said, in early 2003, that Saddam had “sought” uranium in Africa, and that probably is true.

But after he half-answered the WMD point, refuted the Saddam-Sept. 11 link, and failed to swing at the uranium purchase pitch, Bush just didn’t bother to tell the questioner or the greater audience of the solid justifications for regime change in Iraq.

Liberation good? How about liberation for liberation’s sake? Saddam repeatedly had violated U.N. Resolution 688, which required he end his repression. Saddam’s regular murders and tortures of “opponents” violated that cease-fire term. His ordering the cutting out of tongues, the cutting off of hands, the severing of ears and worse was, in fact, an act of war. His failure to allow any freedom or political rights to “his people” justified the liberation.

But Bush didn’t mention, except indirectly, that the end of repression was a good reason -- and a legal justification -- for removing Saddam. He also didn’t mention Saddam’s support for all sorts of terrorists (from Abu Nidal to Abdul Yasin), Saddam’s failure to return the POWs or Saddam’s grand theft from the Oil-for-Food program.

Bush didn’t mention directly any good reason for liberating Iraq. No wonder the public is confused. Why can’t our president see that, when someone asks about bad reasons for going to battle, he’d better be ready with some good reasons?

Frank Warner