Any definition of a “good” or “moral” war must logically include that it was fought for its stated reasons.

However, long after the so-called “end of hostilities” in Iraq, the American people are increasingly dismayed by our government’s inability to find any evidence of our primary reason for invading that nation: weapons of mass destruction.

In fact, Americans are beginning to suspect that the Bush administration and the nation’s intelligence community either misstated, exaggerated or falsified evidence of their existence.

Iraq represented, we were told, a clear and present danger to our national security. Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush said, had chemical and biological weapons, and it was on the verge of developing atomic weapons as well.

What’s more, Iraq had links to al-Qaida, the president and his men warned. The terrorists who brought us the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York could easily obtain even more worrisome weapons from Iraq.

At least so far, the vaunted weapons of mass destruction have eluded us in Iraq. What’s more, there is grumbling from inside the CIA, the FBI and the Pentagon that contrary information was disregarded by the war hawks in the Bush administration who continually pressured analysts for information that supported their war stance.

Meanwhile, the contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida now appear to have been a decade old, and most sources agree they came to nothing. And even worse are hints that the administration knew this.

Now, failing to find the weapons of mass destruction or links to al-Qaida, the president and his administration are pointing to mass graves and evidence of human rights abuses in Iraq. Aside from the U.S. occupation forces, the country is now “free,” the administration boasts, which increasingly seems like another word for ungoverned.

And yet, even administration officials have conceded that human rights violations are not sufficient grounds for putting U.S. troops in harm’s way. If they were, we would be facing a daunting list of nations in need of “liberation.” Why not liberate the Congo? North Korea? Or even China?

Of course, it is summer now. We have won the war and Americans are eager to get on with their lives. The president has labeled his critics “revisionist historians” and has urged we focus instead on the business of cutting taxes.

However, at some point, if the weapons of mass destruction do not materialize, what then?

Does the Congress investigate? Will the president apologize? How does the United States regain the international credibility and goodwill it has lost? How does our Bush administration repair the breach of trust with the American people?

It could be a long, hot summer for the president.


[email protected]