It certainly has been portrayed that the only reason the Bush Administration courted approval for military action in Iraq was Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction and liberals around the country would love to be able to hammer that idea home. But the truth of the matter is that there were several reasons outlined for the action that is now taking place in Iraq, among them the banned weapons, links between the Iraqi leader and terrorist organizations, a desire to liberate the Iraqi people and a policy of bringing democracy and stability to the Middle East. We’re succeeding in three areas and, by all accounts of the now free-to-speak Iraqi scientists that are cooperating, well on our way to succeeding in the fourth. But to listen to the dissenters one would be hard pressed to know it.

While some in this country and around the globe have focused entirely on the matter of his possession of weapons of mass destruction, an issue consistently validated by those who worked in Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs (I am sure the people at MoveOn.org would know more than they), the fact of the matter is there was more to the vote supporting the presidents actions than just WMDs.

There was the contention that he had banned weapons that were prohibited by UN sanctions. These weapons have been found in the medium ranged missiles that violated the sanctions. Further, these missiles were equipped with payload chambers that were specifically designed to deliver chemical and biological weapons, weapons we saw him use on the Kurds. The question that should be asked is why would he have these expensive weapons systems if he never had the means to use them? The answer is that he wouldn’t. Follow the reasoning for having these missiles in the first place and you will not doubt find that he had the immediate means to use them. Whether he had people standing at the ready to manufacture the chemical and biological agents for immediate loading and deployment or he had a stockpile, I fail to see a difference in the threat level. Wouldn’t his capability be exactly the same if he manufactured and immediately deployed these weapons of mass destruction? Wouldn’t the imminent threat have existed just as much as if he had them in a warehouse for Hans Blix to find? The idea that he pursued these weapons in the first place was cause enough. The fact that he found away not to stockpile them and still retain the wherewithal to deploy them constitutes an imminent threat.

Then we have the links to terrorism. The fact that Abu Nidal, the most infamous terrorist of all time until the elevation of Osama bin Laden through his deeds of September 11th, lived in Baghdad under the protection of Saddam Hussein’s regime should be the first red flag. The second red flag should be that terror groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad had satellite headquarters in Baghdad, with Saddam Hussein’s knowledge. And a possible third red flag should be waving at the prospect that Muhammad Atta received training from Abu Nidal prior to his fateful flight. Evidence that mounts each day is supporting that claim. Each day proof is uncovered that Saddam Hussein’s hands were soiled with terrorist bloodlust. The fact that he rewarded the families of Palestinian martyrs, in essence bribing them to become human bombs, with prizes of $25,000 is itself proof of his monetary involvement in terrorism. He also funneled millions to the Palestinian causes, which as we know condones the use of terrorism. Now, I wonder how he made contact with these organizations, through the headquarters of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Baghdad perhaps? As the days go by more and more dirt is dug out from under his fingernails and it is the dirt of terrorism.

Lastly, the desire to bring freedom and democracy to a long terrorized people is probably the most important aspect of this War on Terror, even more so than the vengeance that is the capture of Osama bin Laden. The idea of liberating an oppressed people is an incredible idea. Affording freedom to those who have been without is one of the most admirable things that a people can do for another people. But aside from that, getting a foothold in the region by facilitating a nation mired in the quagmire of democracy is what should be considered an ultimate goal. It will transform a region of oppression into a region with a model that everyone will want to be a part of, secular or not. Proof that this will work is in the demise of the Soviet Union. Build a wall and they will find away around, over or under it. The oppressive regimes of the Middle East are those trying to build that wall, trying to keep their people from tasting the liberties of freedom. The new democratic governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, both beneficiaries of the War on Terror, when established and stabilized to the point where freedom is allowed to flourish, will be the lands to which those who thirst for freedom take flight. Advantage freedom. Disadvantage narcissistic fanatical Islamic fundamentalist leaders.

So, as one with a mind afflicted with common sense can clearly see, there was a lot more riding on the military action that toppled Saddam Hussein then just the elimination of existing WMDs. There was the elimination of a real and imminent threat. There was the eliminations of a tyrant’s wherewithal to inflict harm on his people and his neighboring countries, something that he proves he had the will to do. There was the disruption of a blossoming terror conglomerate that was set to become, until now, an unequaled cooperative of behemoth proportions. And most importantly there was the liberation of an oppressed people and the establishment of democracy within the region. Only through the fruits of freedom and democracy, only through the creation of desire for these freedoms of democracy, will we ever achieve the objective of winning the War on Terror. Anyone who cannot see that the reasons for going to war in Iraq were so much more than WMDs is short sighted and quite frankly, a one trick pony.

Frank Salvato is a political media consultant and the managing editor for The New Media Journal.us. He is a contributing writer for The Washington Dispatch, GOPUSA, OpinionEditorials, Men’s News Daily, Canada Free Press & AmericanDaily. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared as a guest on The O’Reilly Factor, The Kevin Matthews Radio Show (Chicago) and The Brad Messer Radio Show (San Antonio). His pieces have been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are occasionally featured in The Washington Times and The London Morning Paper as well as other national and international publications.