This shouldn't be a surprise for anyone really, but get this, there were no WMD's.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war

This opens up an enormous can of worms if the media and political analysts want to pursue it. I can see one side saying this is proof an of insider giving us info that we believed credible and the other side saying why weren't you more thorough in the vetting process. Without more details its difficult to know the whole story.

Powell has already come out with the "why weren't you more thorough?" argument.

IMO, if you invade a country, millions of people's lives become immediately in danger. You should be a LOT more careful about determining the credibility of your LONE source. Especially when there was no evidence that Americans were in immediate danger if we didn't invade.

Except this wasnt the lone source. It is well documented how many people, including many prominent dems, were saying Saddam had WMDs before Bush was even president.

_________________

Wasn't Al Gore screaming about taking out Saddam when he was campaigning to be president?

Well there was if you consider Saddam would harbor terrorists and provide them resources to attack the US.

The thing is the US didn't just get this information and strike. They wanted to come in and inspect while Saddam basically told them to pound sand. Its pretty easy to come to a conclusion that he was hiding something based on the information and his actions.

I wonder what the critics would be saying if the US didn't do anything and then something did occur? Funny how Clinton escaped mass criticism when he passed on multiple opportunities to take out Bin Laden and had intel that he was planning attacks against Americans.

I honestly feel that politics has hurt our war on terror.

_________________
Follow me on Facebook - Phinfever - Miami Dolphins Fan Site @BigDavePhinfever

Follow me on Twitter - David Blake@phinfever

These issues are all a lot clearer in hindsight. Whatever your opinion on the Iraq war it can't be denied that when the moment of truth came it was a bipartisan operation. Those who voted for the war and later used it as a political tool to beat Bush over the head with showed zero integrity and have no place holding public office.

The sad fact is no matter how dangerous Saddam was Iran turned out to be the rogue state that needed to be invaded, now it appears too late.

I was for the war at the time, but since then I've come to the conclusion that we are better off keeping our noses out of other countries. For example I am against us getting involved or taking sides in Libya. Issues of Genocide are another issue, something that we should be MORE involved in, but unless there are resources at stake, we really turn a blind eye towards such suffering.