[secretagent]

There was no need to cry wolf, and in my opinion we did not cry wolf in Iraq. We took out a regime that had violated its own agreements with us when hostitlities ended at the end of Desert Storm.

We have zero WMD to show for the invasion.

I would have liked the following justification:

"We had unfinished business in Iraq and couldn't let the sanctions continue to sag and we couldn't just let Iraq resume sovereignty."

"If we just let Iraq do its thing, then their WMD programs would resume full bore - no one disagrees with that. And for all we know, admittedly not much, they might even have a clandestine program to pass on bio or chem weapons to US- targeting terrorists."

But this would need to accompany a full discussion of Saudi Arabia and Wahabbi Islam, Pakistan's Muslim nutballs poised to acquire nukes through the government, our extortion payments of oil and food to North Korea, and Russia's building up of Iran's nukes. For starters.

[Jeff Head]

We have zero WMD to show for the invasion.

So?

We did not need them (WMDs) as far as I am concerned. Saddam had violated over and over again terms and conditions that brought Desert Storm to an end and as I understand it we had unilateral provisions in those agreements to act.

Now we have.

The WMD program was clearly advanced and continuing even if they had produced no weapons and it was good icing to put a halt to it. But that did not have to be the justification and I never looked at it that way and wish this administration had not set it forth that way.

Just my own opinion and views on the matter.