[FairOpinion]

Sure, everything is the fault of the US, right?

That IS your basic premise, isn't it?

Saddam is not guitly, the UN is not guilty, but we are. We should have left Saddam in charge and how wonderful would everything be, right? Is that your point?

[joesbucks]

Sure, everything is the fault of the US, right?

We should take our lumps when appropriate and stand tall when appropriate. If we surrounded an administration building, but failed to secure a "WMD" site from looters, then yes, we should be taking the blame. A rookie such as I know that you would need not only to take that type of site, it would need secured.

[joesbucks]

If this were an unliked Dem president, we would all be concluding in the same situation about how the Dem lacked knowledge of how to use and run the military.

[Destro]

You can do a real quick look at my posts to see that I am not a supporter of the UN. But your attempt to run from my question and smearing me as you do is telling.

I agree with joesbucks when he said "we'll never know the Iraqi intention for these things. A certain, large and even all of the material could have been used for legit purposes. Now, however, it is in the hands of those who have no idea what it is or worse know the "dirty bomb" angle."

Since you argue that these are WMD items my question and point is both damning and vital to ask: "If these were potential WMD items and a WMD site may I ask why we did not send our forces there to secure it from looters? I mean we semt troops to secure the oli ministry building in Baghdad but we had no troops available to secure this WMD site? If this is a WMD site then heads should role for it not being secured as soon as possible--hell it is not even secured by any troops right now!! Incompetance on display? Court martials and firings are in order?"

You can't scream WMD!!!!! and then not ask--why was it not secured? Still isn't???