The Failed Presidency.

Doesn't anyone care that the weapons may not have been destroyed, rather, they may have been given away or sold on the black market?

I'd be willing to bet any of you that there are hidden WMD's in Iraq that will never be found. Pretty good bet huh?

Prove it!!!!!!!!!!

It's a good bet Bill because that's a demand that can't be reasonably made:

"ever seen elephants hide in trees?"

There ARE WMDs in Iraq. Anthrax can be found in nature. The point is that it's pretty obvious now that the degree to which this posed a realistic threat was hyped.

That's why I made it -

BTW, the proof of your conjecture (and the point I take most damaging)

"And we know where they are!"

I seem to recall this same unreasonable demand prior to the invasion, when the US demanded Iraq prove they did not have WMD; they were then commanded to provide proof they destroyed the weapons they did not have.

You can't prove a negative.

Maybe you can't prove a negative but it is a handy-dandy ploy when you want an excuse to go to war.

Iraq was required to prove not that it had no WMD, but that it had divested itself of known weaponry and related developmental and production capability. Iraq was not required to prove a negative; the mandate was to prove compliance. This Iraq failed to do. The disposition of much of that known inventory and capability remains in question.

pre-emptive war, not scantioned, for non-compliance of a resolution not of our making, sold under dubious intel, sans provocation? no matter what your politics, that, quiet simply, does not, nor will not instill any international confidence of America's agenda.

A resumption of hostilities following over a decade of evasion, defiance, obstruction, and overt hostile action on the part of the sanctioned party is not pre-emptive in my book. As a member of the UN, bearing the brunt of the cost and effort required by the innefectual containment-and-inspection paradigm, the US was fully justified to insist that Iraq be brought once and for all, one way or the other, to task for her continued intransigence. There was no peace to be broken, there was merely a pause in major actions.

"A resumption of hostilities following over a decade of evasion, defiance, obstruction, and overt hostile action on the part of the sanctioned party is not pre-emptive in my book."

But pre-emption was precisely a reason of the Bush Admin's invasion of Iraq.

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 17, 2002 , Chapter V. states:

"We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends."

The NSSUSA is apologizing preemption.

Bush acted on this doctrine as a legitemizer of his invasion.

That I would agree with. The Iraq invasion was an experiment to see how loudly the world would squawk at the US invading a large nation in defienace of international law and goodwill. The results seem to have been mixed.

And I would posit the mixed reception evidences that some fail to grasp the present, and yet evolving, nature of threats to global security. Folks seem to be more inclined to prepare fight the previous war as opposed to dealing proactively with the circumstances threatening to bring on the next one. Though hindsight may be 20/20, it does nothing to prevent current affairs from unexpectedly whacking you in the back of the head while your attention is elsewhere.

Atthis point, in my not so humble opinion, the US is tied with the stateless terrorists as the number one threat to world peace and security.

I'll grant the two are participants in the struggle. I perceive, however, many fail to recognize that the struggle is all-encompassing. At the risk of inviting comparison (unwarranted, and at core misconstrued, IMO) to "Bring 'em on", I would say that one may choose either to be part of the solution or to remain part of the problem. It comes down to "Lead, follow, or get out of the way", to continue the descent into aphorisms.

And, I believe you are bandying words around an immoral, criminal act that is terrorism on a super power level that only results in further violence and sanctions counter actions of a like nature!!

Lots of folks address the problem with words, Bill. Some take action. Another aphorism: "Those who can, and choose to, do. Those who can't, or won't, criticize"

There is more than one way to "take action", other than with slings and arrows. I think that if the "after war" proves anything, it proves that the UN and its actions were doing a great job and that Bush's actions have riled a hornets nest .......

BTW, I thought before that if Bush would have waited, Saddam would have finally broached the legal line. Today, I believe that would not have happened.

The only true results I see is that continued, increased and stonger containment was the only appropriate "action".

That's a reasonable, informed, principled opinion Bill. It is not, however, the only one to be drawn from the evidence. I feel containment had been demonstrated conclusively to be futile and counterproductive, and that concerted, focused, remedial action was mandated, was undertaken, and is being successfully carried out.

futile counterproductive successfully carried out

appropriated expenditures of grater than $140 billion, one dead is too many, expanded terrorism, <sigh> evidence does seem to be damning to many

But the point of lack to "take action", and therefore, one reasons a whimp, and your steadfast reference to either being on your side or on their side I believe to be fully false, and when I counter that with valid evidence - I take umbrage to your position!