Letting the inspections play out longer would have satisfied everyone. It was never a question of WMDs. For potential partners, it was a question of following proper procedure. Weapons, schmeapons. No one but the studio audience and certifiable crackpots ever took that seriously. What everyone but the Rebel in Chief and his band of merry cretins wanted was correct procedure. A resolution here, an ego stroked there, a courtesy emolument or seventy paid into dignity accounts, some more resolutions and the gruesome, evil deed would have been celebrated, welcomed even. It would have taken as much as a year for the strokes and whatnot to work. When the weapons turned out to not be there, rueful shrugs would have lifted jacket soldiers and plummy voices would have said, "mistakes, regrettably, were made, but isn't it a splendid occupation?"

Instead, they were called chocolate makers and batshit crazy wingnuts poured wine into the streets to teach them a lesson.

Maybe it was more a Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure thing. You put the report there so you could find it later in the space-time continuum. BTW you get interesting results for "continuum" in a Google search.

I have to agree with J Alva Scruggs up to a point. The stroking wasn't done and that's a large part of international policy, however in the end, I still don't think the invasion was right. Its true not finding WMD didn't mean they weren't there, it just means we couldn't find them. But that's how things go. If the police "know" you're guilty, but can find no evidence, then you are not guilty.

Spiiderweb, you may agree with me further than your first impression would suggest. The attack would have been a gruesome, evil deed under any circumstances.

J,

You're right. I do.

it's just big brother trying to confuse you, mr schwartz. it has you questioning your sanity more than say a message like this would, doesn't it?

"hi jon, it appears to me that since you run a "[bleep]g" that doesn't support your mandated president and also expect to be treated to facts, or more accurately fact-based political news, you are unhinged and on the verge of being completely and totally insane.

in fact a squad of re-educators are heading to your ISP right now."

Had a guy tell me recently that the WMD were smuggled out of Iraq, to Iran, and that I could find this out from "websites." I believe this has been tackled here before (as in "why would Iraq smuggle weapons to a country with whom it fought a devastating war?"), but I was wondering if anyone could tell me where this idea originated. This gentleman had placed great emphasis on "educating yourself and knowing who is saying what and why," then said global warming was "junk science" so I'm inclined to take his claims with a grain of salt. I think he said there were "pictures of crates" or something, although it would seem like a pretty handy claim for the administration to make as it faces of with Iran. Any ideas?

More than likely the smuggled weapons rumor orginates with the Administration. Much like Iran, Iraq IS all about he oil from 1880's to now, 125 yrs. Clinton is all about that just as much as Bush. The oil companies did not just appear over night in 2000, and MONEY IS MONEY. Chewing gum in class would have been just as good an excuse as WMD's IF the AMERICAN public would accept it. ANY excuse but oil.

Inspections would have cost hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

Invasion/occupation and nation-building is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars per year: a thousand times as much.

WHY do the Iraqi's get all that ...that ...welfare when folks in the United States get Katrina-ized?

Akihockey
Surely, anyone spreading rumors about the smuggling of WD-40 or whatever from Iraq to Iran is unpatriotically attacking the best secretary of Defense this country has ever had! The implication is clearly that old, commiesympdem story about not having enough troops in the country, which has been so shot down by experts, like Tony Snow and Mel Gibson's personal trainer.

You should tell your "friend" that he needs to get his head out of lefty propaganda land. Otherwise, I think it is your duty to turn him into the FBI. This kind of guy sounds like he might be wearing Jack Anderson's old underwear (upon which there are scribbled various state secrets, highly confidential). We don't need these types in the long war for FFFFREEDOM!

I think what a lot of you are forgetting is that both Drumheller and Clinton are saying is premised on the idea that Bushist America was going to invade Iraq no matter what.

The idea that Clinton would have even gotten us into anything like the current bullshit is wingnut-batshit crazy wet-dreaming, from their side.

As several folks have mentioned here, and as I mentioned years ago [holy shit - has it been three years already?], if procedure had played out on the world stage, the likelihood of invasion was slim to none - hence the way things were done by Rummy, Dick, and Incurious George.

Using logic then, it can be construed that since worldwide political protocol was NOT followed, and the invasion DID happen, then the likelihood that the reasons for invasion/occupation were illegitimate (and likely criminal) is EXTREMELY high, and is why those so-called reasons for invasion/occupation were buried so deeply.

After all, we don't want the Pres., the V.P., and the Sec. Of Def. all going to the Hague for crimes against humanity, do we?

(Actually, I do - and I bet if you're reading this, you do too.)