Is this not the most ironic thing you have ever heard??
True, but Iraq was very evasive with the weapons inspectors. They were often prevented with “delays” from accessing certain areas, and there are records of massive people/equipment/truck movements prior to a “surprise” weapons inspection. Iraq wasn’t very open with the weapons inspectors, and there were numerous instances where allied fighters had to shoot down Iraqi surface-to-air missiles that were targetting allied fighters outside the no fly zone, etc.
I agree, thats true, but the weapon inspectors are not stupid. Everyone sits here and assumes how weapons inspectors are doing and why we should disregard them, yet none of us armchairs political theorist have been there.
Plus, the are not dumb, if they feel they are not getting enough information about the WMD’s they would state so. They would admit that due to the fact that Iraq didn’t provide them with enough of whatnot, they cannot make a good enough decision if Iraq has weapons or not.
But thats not what happened, they said they didn’t beleive Iraq had weapons. That means despite what was happening something gave them that idea, and it seems that what they said still holds true.
Maybe the “real reason” President Bush went to war in Iraq is that he wanted control over Iraqi oil [perhaps to help his “oil buddies”], that he had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein, that he wanted to divert attention from a faltering economy, that he sought greater influence in the Middle East, that he had imperialist ambitions, that he wanted to campaign for reelection in 2004 as a victorious commander-in-chief. Take your pick. They are all misleading the American people. And he should be held accountable.
Well if he wanted oil, Brunei is infinitely easier to attack. Alaska is another easy target - another easy area to invade! Revenge against Saddam - maybe, but that’s like waging a war against the devil - good for him. I am not sure it benefits anybody running against him to say we would rather have Saddam in power 
About the economy - it’s not faltering now, and it was showing signs up a recovery during the early stages of the war. We don’t really need MORE influence in the middle east. Israel is there. More influence never does hurt though.
Have you read Newsweek or Time or any of the major newspapers recently? Almost all of them refer to the intelligence issues, etc. He is being held accountable 
EDIT: RB - maybe, but they were never certain. They said Iraq may have weapons, but going to war over speculation wasn’t needed.
That would really be something if Bush attacked Alaska, eh Kirupa? lol
Yeah a couple M1-A1 tanks could take out all the porcupine caribou and then there would be no need protect thearea from drilling. 
RB, how could it be obvious to you that they didn’t have weapons of mass distruction after they gassed their own people? If you ask me thats a pretty good sign they have the weapons. And I love all the people talking about how Bush should be accountable. Many of them are Democrats, and I don’t remember many of them saying that Clinton “should be held accountable” when he committed purjury.
First of all, I am not a Democrat or a Republican, I am a Beer, a RussianBeer. Clinton screwd up more that just lying about a a friggin blow job. For that, he should be held accountable, not about a blowjob.
Second of all, look up the dates for the gassings, they happened in the late 80’s and early 90’s (if you want to have more fun, look up who gave them the gas and the helicopters) Since then there has been a war and over a decade of sanctions… with survialance and spying from the strongest military and country ever. Plus all of its powerfull allies. Along with UN inspectors on the ground, satellites, spy planes, spys, defectors… the list goes on…
And not once did any country produce credible evidence…
And now the coalition forces are there, and they strangely enough cannot find the WMD’s the whitehouse has been preaching about.
(why doesent anyone read my previous posts, repeating myself sucks)
