Conclusion

The United States invaded Iraq on 19 March 2003. The basic storyline at the time, which served to legitimize the invasion, was the Bush administration’s allegations that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that he had “links” to terrorists. The narrative stated repeatedly that taken together this constituted a “grave” threat to the security of the United States. It would become apparent over time, however, that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Osama bin Laden and posed no imminent threat to the United States On 2 July 2009 a front page article in the Washington Post exposed the content of a declassified interview that occurred in 2004 between FBI agent George L. Piro and Saddam Hussein. According to the article, Saddam Hussein stated “he [had] allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran.” He also “denounced Osama bin Laden as a ‘zealot’ and said he had no dealings with al Qaeda” (Kessler 2009). It has become accepted knowledge that Saddam Hussein was in fact telling the truth – he had no weapons of mass destruction and no ties to al Qaeda: the administration’s dominant narrative for war was discredited by President Bush himself in a 2006 news conference. Responding to a reporter’s question about the original rationale for the Iraq War, he states:

Now, look, I – part of the reason we went into Iraq was – the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. . . . You know, I’ve heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and you know, kind of – the “stir up the hornet’s nest” theory. It just doesn’t hold water as far as I’m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were . . .