Kevin D. Korenthal, July 10, 2004

One only needs to look back into the history of this great nation to determine what side of today's most serious issues you should be on. There is plenty of precedent for the War On Terror. There is historical proof that America's growing separation from our core beliefs is leading to a moral decline in this nation. Everyone who is reading this opinion piece is fully capable of determining right from wrong.

The War On Terror is the international war on those that hate freedom. Post 9/11, a radical tyrant like Saddam in a powder keg like the Middle East could no longer be tolerated. Many of the same people who were against the Gulf War were and are against overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Yes, men like the Democratic Nominee John Kerry said, "To heck with the almost unanimous international backing, Saddam can stay in Kuwait!" Do you want to know why they felt that way? They felt that way because in their minds that war was all about securing cheap oil. Sound familiar? Of course today's war is wholly more divisive than the 1991 Gulf War. It is one thing to repel foreign forces from an occupied land and another to oust a long-standing government from the country they built and then destroyed. Slowly.

But when we look at the "right and wrong" of both wars, some similarities come into focus. Both wars were based on a level of threat posed by that regime in Baghdad. After the first Gulf War, we learned Saddam had WMD programs that were way beyond our estimates. Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out in 1998. That gave him 4 years to rebuild his capabilities, safe from the watchful eye of the CIA. Before 1998, because of inspections, we knew a great deal about what Saddam was and was not capable of. But after 1998, we were blinded.

Again, Saddam refused to comply in full. Despite 12 years and 17 United Nations Resolutions, Saddam refused to come clean about his WMD programs and continued to support terrorism around the world. He was given a final chance in UN Resolution 1441. When Saddam Hussein was given a "last chance" to comply and he failed to do so immediately, we had no choice but clean Iraq's WMD out ourselves. It just so happened that creating a Democracy in Iraq would have a great effect on the entire Middle East. If in fact Iraq could be made into some form of Democracy, it would be capable of spreading it all over the region. We went. We are there right now and we will tame Iraq. There is no "quagmire" and the so called "insurgents" are nothing more than admitted Freedom Haters who seek to rule with violence and suffering.

History tells us that our Judeo/Christian values are good for people of all religions, races, creeds and even sexual orientation. Other ideological patterns have led to the domination of many by few. Saddam's Iraq, Iran and North Korea are all example of nations that are ruled by tyranny. No elections, no free speech and no right to a fair trial.

Should America, as the beacon of Democracy and Freedom in the world stand by as gathering threats catch us off guard yet again? Did Saddam support terrorism and engage in WMD programs? Yes he did. Would he have ever renounced that empire if we had (as John Kerry and the French suggest) given him more time? Not likely.

As Syndicated Talk Show Host and Co-Host of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity is fond of pointing out, "The Left is again on the wrong side of history at the most critical decisions of our time". Just as they were wrong when Reagan proposed arming Europe to force the Soviet Union into bankruptcy. What's more the left is lying to you hoping you won't do the simple research it takes to get the truth. If they said Saddam had terrorist ties in 2000, how can they now say there were none? Which side will you choose?

Copyright © 2004 Kevin D. Korenthal