Dude, yer right that I'm new here but actually I'm registered non-partisan. I can tell you this though, I have a number of friends from Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Tennessee and Fla. Most of whom are Republicans. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM initially supported the war over two things and two things only, the potential for WMDs in Iraq and the possible involvement of Saddam in 911 and cooperation between him and Al Quada. None of them gave a damn about liberating Iraq. If you take away WMDs and the 911 connection, what are you left with? Answer: Not much. If it's about fighting terrorism "over there" rather than here, then what's wrong with sticking to Afghanistan? Wouldn't one theater of operation be better than two? (You could ask Hitler about the wisdom of the two-theater strategy, if he was still around). Forces can be concentrated in one theater. Most Afghans want us there because they hate the Taliban. But I digress. Your question, as I understood it anyway, is essentially why would Saddam interfere with the UN inspection teams so much if he had nothing to hide? Maybe I got that wrong but either way it's a legit question. If you read Duelfer's report you'll find his answer, which is that Saddam was bluffing and that was part of the bluff. He didn't have WMDs and officially he said just that, however, he wanted Israel and Iran to think he did have them to deter an attack by them. Sounds kind of wac but then this is Saddam we're talkin' 'bout. If so, it backfired on him. Unfortunately, it seems the Pres. and VP and neoconservatives all took that bait. The question now, as the bodies are still piling up (um, including GIs, dude), is if it was really worth it. The jury is still out on that, in my view.