[The Old Hoosier]

The war on terror, and the center of the storm is now in Iraq, and not here. Saddam's capacity to destroy his own people, his neighbors, and US through continued coordination with al Qaida is GONE. And Iraq will be a democracy in the center of the darkest region in the world.

All of those are ex-post-facto justifications. None of them were our stated reason for going to war.

Again, the Iraq invasion really has not served our interests, even if it served those of Iraqis. There's absolutely no evidence that we've made ourselves safer from terrorism by going to Iraq.

If we'd spent that $300 billion on patrolling our borders, then we'd be safe from terrorists. As matters stand, anyone with the will to do it still can, Iraq invasion or no Iraq invasion.

[ohioWfan]

Yes there is evidence.........in the now proven connection between Iraq and alQuada.........in the fact that Libya gave up its nuclear weapons program because of our invasion of Iraq..............and in the fact that other countries in the region are moving toward democracy for the same reason.

You may not admit it, but there is much evidence to support the need to snuff out the terrorist, Saddam Hussein for our safety.

And if you really believe that putting the military on our borders and protecting it is all that's needed to protect us from terror, you are very naive for an Old Hoosier.........

[Allegra]

Again, the Iraq invasion really has not served our interests, even if it served those of Iraqis. There's absolutely no evidence that we've made ourselves safer from terrorism by going to Iraq.

Establishing a strategically located strong ally in the world's most volatile region doesn't serve our interests?