To: michael97123 who wrote (155344 ) 1/5/2005 8:15:54 PM From: GST Respond to The WMD arguments did not hold water even at that time. The decision to invade never hinged on wmd -- it was a policy-driven decision. Having adopted the policy, the Administration went in search of a reason -- wmd's seemed like the best way to make the case. No effort was spared at making a fig leaf look like a suit of armor. The only uncertainty was whether it was outright lying or simply incompetent hyperbole. Whatever it was it was nauseating. When nothing was found -- absolutely nothing -- I admit I was surprised. There was absolutely nothing to provide the Administration with even the fig leaf they felt sure they had. Instead, the naked truth was that the wmd thing was a BS reason from day one. Saddam posed no WMD threat to the US -- ever. And he posed little or no threat in the region. We did not invade Iraq to rid Iraq of WMD. Nor did we invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons. We invaded Iraq to flex our muscles in a region where we saw much to be gained -- invading Iraq was opportunistic. The opportunity to get rid of Saddam, gain control over strategic resources, create military bases to control the region, and to exercise our trump card -- our military capability -- and turn it into political power in the region. As is often the case with bald opportunism, the whole thing blew up in our face. The only part that worked out was getting Saddam. That is why so much is made of getting Saddam -- it is all we have to show for spending hundreds of billions of dollars, gutting the UN, alienating the world, stretching our military to the breaking point and leaving us with few if any viable options to stop the spread of terrorism in the region -- and of course I should mention the ultimate price paid by countless Iraqis and so many fine young Americans. If you are not angry about this mess, you should be.
