I also never thought WMD's to be the primary reason for the regime change.
I thought that W's mission was more to change the entire complexion of the Middle East. I think he feels that is necessary if Islamic terrorism is ever to be eradicated and its threat of setting off WMD's in America to be removed. Saddam was a logical first target in such a quest for several reasons, not the least of which was his obvious danger to the world in general.
Also, IMO, the thing would have been over a long time ago, except for the more or less constant moaning about how badly things are going there by the Democrat Pary and by the media. The terrorists read this stuff too, and take hope from it, and keep going.
Having said all that, hasn't W himself already come out and as much as said that there were no WMD's in Iraq anyway?
I think you're probably right -- which means I was absolutely correct back in 2000 when I speculated that his campaign promise to "avoid using the military for futile nation-building exercises" was utter bullsh!t.
Also, IMO, the thing would have been over a long time ago, except for the more or less constant moaning about how badly things are going there by the Democrat Pary and by the media.
I disagree with you on that point. The U.S. was thoroughly unprepared for what would happen in a post-war occupation of Iraq -- mainly because the chief architects of the war were a bunch of over-educated think-tank @ssholes who would convert to Islam before they would ever put on a military uniform.