Exactly what I said. No one disputes Saddam had weapons programs before 1991. No one disputes he would have restarted them in a second if he could have. What he did not have was actual WMDs or *functioning* weapons programs.

Read the second paragraph. These were sites subject to UN monitoring. They knew where the equipment was and what it was. How else do you think they know there were 3.380 valves, 107 pumps and 7.8 miles of pipes at 39 chemical sites?

Anything he could. But with the inspections he wasn't able to actually develop much of anything. Plus, check out the timing. Since inspectors were kicked out before the invasion, there's a big question mark over WHEN this stuff disappeared. But various stories have noted that at least some of the gear disappeared AFTER the U.S. invasion -- because we didn't have enough troops available to secure the sites.

Finally, the story notes that some of the material has shown up in scrapyards around the region. Conclusion: Looters took it.

I do not mourn Saddam.

My opposition to the Iraq war is based on the cost, the misleading (IMO) way the Bush administration waltzed up to it, our complete lack of a coherent doctrine to justify the invasion, the sheerly incompetent postwar planning and the huge damage done to America's standing in the world by our hamhanded diplomacy and arrogance.

If Bush had told the American people "We need to face down dictators because, you know, dictatorship is wrong", I would have backed him. That's why I supported his father in the first Gulf War even though I had my doubts about the pristineness of our intentions; I actively hoped whomping Iraq would lead to a more activist and interventionist foreign policy -- but one grounded on clear and defensible doctrine, with the carefully cultivated support of the American people.

Instead Bush used terrorism as an excuse, ridiculed anyone who questioned the evidence or the estimated cost, squandered the post-9/11 goodwill, and then botched the postwar phase.

We will succeed in Iraq through sheer stubbornness; I like that about Americans. But we still have no coherent doctrine, few devoted friends and the effort is blowing a huge hole in the federal budget.

Blech.

__________________
Man up.

"What he did not have was actual WMDs or *functioning* weapons programs."

The article does not say that. It says these sites had a dual design--they could make conventional chemicals AND WMD's.

There is no reason to hide plant equipment if it was used for making conventional chemicals. The only motivation for hiding plant equipment is if these sites were making WMD's.

The UN was "monitoring" these sites, yes (when Saddam wasn't throwing them out of the country for extended periods of time). But the UN was unable to ever put forth a definitive statement that these plants were not used for making WMD's and they were only making conventional chemicals. If you're innocent, you have nothing to hide. But when you hide, the assumption is you must be guilty.

And lastly, how can something be missing that never existed (according to the left) in the first place?

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

"Instead Bush used terrorism as an excuse, ridiculed anyone who questioned the evidence or the estimated cost, squandered the post-9/11 goodwill, and then botched the postwar phase."

Since when is terrorism an excuse? It's a (*)(*)(*)(*) good reason. But the nuts is this--all the left can do is critisize. Nothing but doom and gloom from the left. They offer up ZERO ideas on what they would actually do. The left has no ideas, no vision and no future. Even Hillbilly said the other day he'd invaded Iraq.

Tell us--what would you have done differently, and how would that make the US a safer place? Are you saying the US would be safer had Saddam been left in power? That seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Not when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, no real links to terror groups, was crawling with U.N. inspectors and having bombs dropped on it daily. Of all the candidates for a terrorism-related invasion, Iraq shouldn't have been at the top of the list.

Then you're not listening. Besides, I'm not "the left". I'm me. And a lot of people on the left would not consider me to be on the left.

I've spelled this out ad nauseum in previous threads. To sum up:

1. Take a long view of the situation. The likelihood of another 9/11 immediately after 9/11 was low; invade Afghanistan, but otherwise use the time to build defenses and launch a long-term strategy to strangle terrorism in its cradle.

2. Pour money into border security, notably port security. Be proactive about it, inspecting cargo and checking visas in foreign ports and cities.

3. Go after the money. Choke off the financing of terror networks.

4. Develop a doctrine. Make it clear that harboring or aiding terrorists will get you on the "needs to be whacked" list. Draw a clear, reasonable line -- stay on this side, we're friends and trading partners; stray to the other side, and we'll be kicking in your doors.

5. Develop military capabilities, including increased special forces, to reflect the new doctrine.

6. Cultivate allies in the fight. Make it clear this isn't a U.S. problem, but a world problem. Use the understandable anger over 9/11 to push reasonable but hard-nosed demands on other countries in the areas of money tracking, intelligence sharing and political cooperation.

7. Go after actual terrorists and their actual supporters. I'd have finished the job in Afghanistan and be making a strong push in the tribal regions of Pakistan. Libya, Syria, Iran and possibly Indonesia would be on my hit list ahead of Iraq, with a muscular diplomacy backed up by the credible threat of military force.

8. I'd have put strong pressure on Saudi Arabia, making it clear that they can no longer tolerate extremists in their midst and have to crack down on wealthy Saudi backing for terror groups.

9. Increase foreign aid spending dramatically to support democratic change and improved living standards in the areas that generate terrorists. Remove the conditions that spawn terror, and you cut terror off at the knees.

10. Pressure the U.N. to grant far-reaching authority to prosecute a global war on terror. Whatever you think of the U.N., having such authority would provide all sorts of diplomatic cover and legitimacy in the eyes of the world.

11. Make other countries put skin in the game, in the form of troops, money or other aid.

12. Vastly improve our intelligence-gathering operations. Pour money into training for Arabic translators and terrorism specialists.

The list goes on. Bush has done some of this; some he hasn't. Some his actions have rendered difficult or impossible.

__________________
Man up.