Besides, is Iraq alone in its abilty to produce chemical weapons? Are chemical weapons the only method terrorists can use to kill scores of Americans. Was Iraq the only threat to national security?
No, No and No.
If a country in the Middle East was producing box cutters would you go to war, because that's all it really took to make 9/11 happen. Yes, Saddam was a threat, but North Korea is an even larger threat and there has been little action on the part of the Bush administration, and certainly no calls for the removal of Kim Jong Il, who is just as bad if not worse than Saddam.
As I said in my previous post, removing Saddam was a good thing, but the price of doing so in comparison with other methods (diplomacy, sanctions, etc.) is getting higher and higher and no longer seems worth it. If all the promises that led us into this war came to be, fine, but that's just not the case as much as I'm sure we all wanted it to be.
This article shows that the sanctions were working and instead of sending 1000s of troops to death or dismemberment, we should have kicked the international community in the butt to get serious about Saddam. I'm proud of W taking a stand when the rest of the world would not, but he did it with the wrong information. As president, he can't be allowed to screw this up, but he was undermined by intel failures across the board and his own personal desires to get Saddam. Add to this the Halliburton nonsense and you begin to feel misled. As Truman made clear, "the buck stops" in the oval office.
Oh stop it with the "personal desires' and the "Halliburton nonsense". You're being ridiculous. You are incapable of grasping the big picture. As Christopher Hitchens of Vanity Fair magazine (no friend of Ronald Reagan) said about Bush's grand plan to install democracy in the center of the middle east... "What if it works?".
It could be an historic move and Bush would go down in history as one of mankind's greatest freedom fighters.