[Dr. Frank fan]

Too bad Bush didn't use some other logic than WMD's.

Maybe, but there are always tradeoffs in life. If he hadn't "used" WMD as the "logic", he wouldn't have been able go through the UN at all (because that's what the "resolutions" were about), which would have meant no help from Tony Blair and Britain (since Blair evidently thought at least attempting to use the UN was necessary for him politically), which perhaps would've meant more dead American soldiers.

So, take your pick: increased American casualties, or decreased American casualties + yapping critics afterwards. Hmm, toughie.

[Dr. Frank fan]

P.S. I should add that if he hadn't "used WMD as the logic", i.e. hadn't gone to the UN at all, he'd have yapping critics on his heels if only for that (the "unilateralism"), right now. There was no critic-proof way of invading Iraq.

[KevinDavis]

Basicall for Bush is: Damned if he did something, Damned if he doesn't do something.

[meenie]

It seems to be a given that we had to invade Iraq. If they had no WMD's, what would have been the logic? This defies any reason. Did we have to go because we disliked Saddaam? Did we have to go because we wanted to kill some of the Iraqi people? Did we have to go because Iraq was a danger to our country? What is the reason?

I just cannot understand the logic of defending a war based on mistruths. We saw it in Vietnam with Johnson and the Tonkin incident which was proved to be false and destroyed his administration. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Trying to defend it, places the Republicans in the same box as the party that we so roundly criticize for not being able to tell the truth.