Quote from ARogueTrader:
Oh rubbish. What typical conservative double talk and rationalization.
Remember before the war it was "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?"
Remember how when the war started the conservatives told us how we had to disarm Saddam, because he represented such a threat to national security?
Name me one conservative media luminary who didn't say with full certainty that Saddam had WMD and was going to use them on the USA if we didn't attack now.
Touche!
However.
The threat wasn't so much that Saddam, himself, was going to use them, as it was that, being as anti-US as he was, and given the changes in the post 9.11 world order, Saddam could no longer be trusted.
At the time, it's not too much of a stretch to believe that, based on our best guesses, Iraq did possess such weapons. Personally, I don't see the failure to yet locate any as nearly as much of a fatal flaw as liberals do. The fact is that there had long been good arguments for taking out Saddam. Eventually, a confluence of factors emerged that provided the catalyst for going in.
I'll also say that there are a sickening number of dimwitted peaceniks in the US, who simply cannot understand the concept of looking forward to tomorrow and that somes things you do to make a better world aren't always going to be 'by the book'. So I don't blame the administration for doing whatever it took to get public support for its actions. Yes, "freedom loving" peaceniks make great sounding legalistic arguments, but when you look at the bigger picture, or at least when I do, most of it just doesn't stack up.
See my earlier post on this thread about why going to Iraq was an excellent decision.