Former Secretary of State George Shultz published an essay in the September 7, 2002, Washington Post. “Shultz laid out the most influential arguments for war [in Iraq], which have since been proven to have the least basis in fact. According to Shultz, the most compelling argument for war was the catastrophic and immediate threat posed to the United States by Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and his links to terror. Shultz writes: ‘Self-defense is a valid basis for preemptive action. The evidence is clear that Hussein continues to amass weapons of mass destruction. He has also demonstrated a willingness to use them against internal as well as external targets. By now, the risks of inaction clearly outweigh the risks of action. …When the risk is not hundreds of people killed in a conventional attack but tens of hundreds of thousands killed by chemical, biological or nuclear attack, the time factor is even more compelling.’ Shultz then argued that Iraq is ‘a major source of and support for terror and instability,’ and that by taking Hussein out, ‘a model can emerge that other Arab societies may look to and emulate for their own transformation and that of the entire region.’ ”
– Antonia Juhasz, The Bush Agenda, Pages 182-183