Thanks for the question. My answer is no.
Now, don't get me wrong: I'd be all in favor of dethroning the Syrian regime. But not "because of the WMDs"! I'd be in favor of dethroning the Syrian regime even if I didn't believe (which I do) that some of Iraq's WMDs ended up in Syria. The problem is the regime, not the WMDs. See my point now? Perhaps the WMDs give the Syria problem more urgency. But no, I don't think it makes sense to say we need to invade Syria "because of the WMDs".
Meanwhile, Lebanon? Lebanon just went through a "Cedar Revolution" where, it is thought, they tossed out some of the Syrian puppets. The results remain to be seen, but the idea of us trying to "dethrone" a government that just was (kinda/sorta) democratically-elected as a reaction to Syrian puppetry, is obviously ridiculous and a non-starter. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot. This illustrates perfectly the folly of focusing on "WMDs" per se - you've heard that some of the "WMDs" might be in Lebanon, so you're ready to invade Lebanon. Clearly you haven't thought about the actual situation in Lebanon before coming to this conclusion. (Not that I'm some huge expert on Lebanon :-)
I doubt that Bush would have had enough support to go to war if his argument was solely to "smash up the power of Hussein and his Baathists".
Who says?
Besides, I thought all along that's precisely what he was arguing in favor of doing: dethrone Hussein. Why didn't you?
Oh, right. Because the lefties and the media tried to shoehorn the entire argument into a "WMDs" corner so that (1) they could make the argument look as narrow as possible and (2) if we didn't find any, they could claim the war was based on "lies".
Again, Bush's argument, almost by definition, was We need to get rid of Hussein, not "we need to go confiscate the WMDS". (He was, after all, asking for authority to militarily invade, not to lead some kind of FBI-style "raid" of Iraq.) Sure, he talked about "WMDs" a lot - because they were one of the big reasons we needed to get rid of Hussein (and also because we could raise "WMDs" as an issue before the UN). But that didn't make "getting the WMDs" the goal of the mission. As you can see, it's hugely irritating to me that so many folks got that impression. People are missing the forest for the trees here.
I think you are rewriting history to justify a claim that Bush succeeded. So far he has not succeeded in this war, IMHO.
I don't need to "rewrite history" to point you to the text of the War Powers resolution. That's actual history. And in that text, Bush is authorized to use military force against Iraq to "(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." These are as close as anyone can ever get to identifying the Official Purpose Of The War. And guess what? "Confiscate those WMDs" is not listed.
Like I told tonycavanaugh, it would certainly be good to do so and it's certainly bad that we haven't, but "confiscating the WMDs" per se was not the Purpose Of The War. You have nothing concrete you can actually point to which says that it was, and meanwhile I have the text of the War Powers resolution where "confiscation" as such is notably absent. So who's the one "rewriting history"? I suggest you actually take a look at the history.
You are entitled to your HO that Bush has not succeeded in "this war" all you want, for all it's worth. It all depends on criteria, doesn't it? But do your criteria match reality? Again: no war has been fought in recent history anywhere for the Purpose of "confiscating" certain objects. If that is your criteria for "success" then I think you have a cartoon-land concept of how, why, and for what purpose wars are fought.
To be clear, I of course understand and agree that there are a lot of problems and uncertainties re:Iraq right now. But the invasion of Iraq, if that's what you mean by "this war", was (like many if not most invasions) done for the purpose of removing Iraq's rulers from power. It succeeded in about three weeks, as I recall.
What is taking place currently, if *that's* what you mean by "this war", is not even the same war. Now, we are attempting to safeguard Iraq's fledgling democratic government from terrorists, infiltrators and civil war. Let me be perfectly clear and acknowledge that that war (the safeguard-Iraq's-government war) is far from over and its fate is not a foregone conclusion. If you want to say that Bush "hasn't succeeded" at that war (safeguarding Iraq's fledgling government), then fine, I totally agree with you. (IMHO it's just a matter of time - i.e., years and maybe even decades.) Not that that has all that much to do with "WMDs" either way.
Sorry - interesting discussion, but I'm afraid I took you off on a tangent there. Bottom line: it's just a silly idea to invade Lebanon just because some ex-Iraq's "WMDs" are there (even if that's true). And I think if you think about it you'll probably see my point. :-) Best,