As far as I know, there were no weapons of mass destruction used by the Iraqis in Iraqi Freedom. Therefore there were no WMD's in spite of all the speculation generated before. Bush and his administration made the calculation that WMD's would be used. They weren't and they have been backtracking ever since and diverting to other subjects to spin the reasons we went to war. The lesson to be learned is that war is too important and destructive to be made on speculation.
The fact that there were (apparently) no WMD used doesn't mean "there were no WMD's". Not by a long shot.
Bush and his administration made the calculation that WMD's would be used.
So did, essentially, every single person in the Western world, pro- or anti-war. Everyone was saying that Saddam would use WMD against our troops. I certainly thought and feared so. It proved not to happen (seemingly), and certainly I wonder why.
They weren't and they have been backtracking ever since
Who's been "backtracking"? About what? Be specific. Remember that virtually everyone thought these WMD would be used. The fact that they weren't doesn't mean anyone needs to "backtrack".
When you pay for auto insurance, but don't have any accidents, do you need to "backtrack" and "explain" why you were "wrong" to gamble that you would get into some accident? Course not, that's silly.
The lesson to be learned is that war is too important and destructive to be made on speculation.
Yeah, I mean after all, just look at the horrible result we have caused: Hussein out of power.
TRAGIC
I suppose I'd agree that war is too important "to be made on speculation". But what "speculation" are you talking about? Who was "speculating"? Cite your evidence.
Further, war may be "too important", but so is not-war. That is, if you're so reluctant to pull that trigger that you wait till attacks are made on your own soil... uh, that ain't any good either.
There needs to be some kind of balance between the two approaches.