Good points Eric.

For the most part I agree that we need to look at what's in store for us in the future with Iraq and the ripples we've created that will follow. That is the obvious priority.

The reason, I think, to continue to look back at how we got here and the reason to look at the present situation is because I think that is how we can decide for ourselves if the current administration has made good choices and responded well to all the different aspects of the situation. The obvious "if we don't learn from our history we are doomed to repeat it" applies here. I think this examination by those that lean left is often taken as "hate", "partisanship", or just plain "blind & deaf babble." Of course when someone who leans right posts a response that is found to be empty of arguments that counter what has been put before them...well they get accused of the same thing. A general "I give up you'll never listen" results. The argument dies only to resurface later to play out again exactly as it had before.

I certainly think there is a general dislike of the current administration on this board and I have often wondered if guys like Kevin G, Pat, or GA really like this administration and their decisions or if they just would prefer to stick with a guy that claims to be a Rebublican (he doesn't act like one) rather than allowing a Democrat to get the seat in the big house. I will say that the discussion has taken a different turn of late and seems to be much more thoughtful. On to Iraq...

It surprises me that Bushco has not pointed to what seems to be a rather large and interesting item when addressing the danger Saddam posed. It may be perhaps that it contradicts a bit what they sold us as an image of Saddam and his regime. Not that this administration has ever seemed to mind contradictions. The thing is though it's not a bad point. If they brought it up before the war I think it would have been a decent argument. If they bring it up now...well...I guess you would see the same argument from the left that you get whenever Bushco tries to change their story for why we had to attack Iraq. Here's the big point...and I don't recall anyone from the right bringing this up...Saddam had lost control of the country and the government.

David Kay talked about this and it's been in other reports. It seems Saddam was being duped by his own people, scientists, whoever could get a piece of the action, and had isolated himself for the most part. Iraq appeared to be on the verge of chaos and maybe even an internal overthrow of Saddam. It sounds as if the guy was having a serious breakdown...writing novels and sending them around for people to review and other such nonsense. The idea that he was having private meetings with his scientists who were presenting him with bizarre and completely unrealistic plans for weapons and other nonsense...that Saddam could not make sense of on his own...just so they could dupe him out of the cash for programs they never created nor intended to begin seems to indicate a regime that was headed toward if not already in chaos.

Why don't the folks at Bushco ever push that argument? It at least makes some sense to say "The guy had lost control of his country and we had no idea what may occur or if he had any stores of materials that could have fallen into the hands of terrorists." There is at the very least a ring of truth to that argument.

I think it goes against the sales pitch they threw at us though. They wanted people to see Saddam as a Hitler type figure that was building his arsenal to take over the world. In their argument it made more sense to try and sell that image rather than the inept loon who had lost control of his regime and country. The problem is the facts support the inept loon image not the "new Hitler" image.

All things lead back to the same ideas...that there was a general dishonesty, intentional attempt to mislead, and lame excuse that "we were the victim of poor intelligence." The reason I call that a lame excuse is that it appears that a lot of what we knew before the war about the sad state of Iraq and that they had shut down weapons programs after 1991 seems to have been true. The worst part of that is it was all so well known as well. I mean it would really require our intelligence people to be Larry, Moe, and Curly for it to have been as bad as they claim it to have been. It also plays into the whole idea...that also seems well supported...that the plan before 9/11 was always to go get Saddam. Why don't they just admit to that as well?  

Are we better off without Saddam? Of course we are. Are we better off as a nation with the way we've approached these issues? I would say, of course not. It seems obvious to me but I know there's always another argument...and no, I don't know everything but I'm just going on what I've seen and info that goes all the way back to the 60's and 70's.

There's a lot to consider about the Iraq situation and really I don't think we've even scraped the surface. I do think just knowing what we know right now though refelcts poorly on the Bush administration and demonstrates poor leadership on their part.