Should the United States have invaded Iraq five years ago? Revisionist history and partisan politics aside, I happen to believe that large elements of the argument to do so made sense at the time. But so what?
Neither my belief in the need to confront Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction program, nor the belief of those who felt that under no circumstances should we have set one foot in that country, means a thing. It is what it is. We broke it, and we need to fix it.
Highlighting the negative, ignoring most of the positive and using the misery of the war to score cheap debating points have been in vogue for the last few years. While those who twist or ignore the facts would rather not be reminded of recent and relevant history, on this anniversary, I think it's worth another mention.
History, for instance, shows that in 1998, Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Iraq Liberation Act. It stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
In December 1998, after ordering military action in response to Mr. Hussein's decision to expel the U.N. weapons inspectors, Mr. Clinton said, "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. ... The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
While many critics of the war like to portray our intelligence operatives as buffoons or rubber stamps for the Bush administration, they often conveniently ignore the pre-war intelligence reports of nations such as England, France, Russia and Israel. All believed - right up until the day we invaded - that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. So did Mr. Hussein's own generals.
Revisionist history has no place in this debate. Partisan politics has no place in this discussion. Such lowest-common-denominator tactics serve only to demean the sacrifices and deaths of tens of thousands Iraqis, and almost 4,000 U.S. troops.
There are voices of reason in our nation who speak on this subject with conviction and without bias, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut being one such person. Sadly, because he dared to be an independent thinker on this subject, he was basically drummed out of the Democratic Party.
What drove some in the far left to assail Mr. Lieberman? Aside from his carefully articulated support for the invasion, it was the fact that he would not abandon his principles and agree to a date for withdrawal.
Be the first to read Douglas MacKinnon's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Oh My: Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif Accused Of Being A ‘Traitor’ By Hardliner Over Iranian Deal | Matt Vespa
WATCH: Michelle Malkin Eviscerates Liberal Professor On Generosity of America, Illegal Immigration | Katie Pavlich
Seriously: White House Suggests More Gun Control In Strict Baltimore After Bloody Memorial Day Weekend | Katie Pavlich