Please consider a trip to Somalia and give us the lowdown there. I think it is an underrepoterd as well as critical part of the picture of the War against Terrorism.

1) Declassified NGIC report:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

2) 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

3) 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

4) Chemical warheads containing cyclosarin:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/07/02/international1018EDT0516.DTL
and: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html

5) Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

6) Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
Those weapons were previously unknown to U.N. inspectors.

Oh yeah, and his terrorist connections:
He gave thousands of dollars to families of suicide bombers and in addition, Iraqi intelligence met with al Qadea operatives and provided with training camps in Northern Iraq:

The Mother of All Connections
From the July 18, 2005 issue: A special report on the new evidence of collaboration between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and al Qaeda.
by Stephen F. Hayes & Thomas Joscelyn
07/18/2005, Volume 010, Issue 41
Source:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp?pg=1

Saddam Hussein, as evidenced by the WMD found, his previous use, continued willingness to use them, and the documents discovered which connected him to terrorists, was a threat. The fact remains that the inspectors got absolutely nowhere with regard to full disclosure of Hussein’s WMD program.

I’m a veteran of both Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. We should have finished the job in Iraq the first time.

In 2002 we had the Taliban on the run. In loking at the larger war on terrorism, though, the major short-term existential threat to the US was in WMD and technology proliferation. By definition this meant Iran, Iraq and the A. Q. Kwan network (Pakistan, Syria, Libya, etc.). The only viable long-term solution to defeat terrorism and the ideology that drives it I can see is a Middle East that is not dominated by totalitarian leaders (secular, like Saddam, or religious, like the Mullahs). The real question was always how to influence regional events to that end while managing an acceptable WMD/technology proliferation risk.

As I said, in 2002 I could not imagine an end-state that included a Ba’athist Iraq. For a decade we had unsuccessfully attempted to influence regime change, and I see no evidence to suggest that an additional 10 years or more would have any difference. A committed and heavilly armed enemy in the region would always require a significant containment effort and serve as a spoiler on our flank in the event of any other operation. And there was always the WMD question.

While obviously looking at things differently than I, you seem honest enough to not try and trot out the silly “Bush lied” exageration that too often used to stop real discussion on the matter. The fact is, practically everyone believed Iraq possessed prohibited weapons and technology and that post-invasion inspections did find both (admittedly not in the quantity expected) in addition to copiuos documents detailing future plans to reconstitute programs once sanctions had been lifted. Personally, I have seen nothing to convince me that at the time Powell made his (in)famous presentation to the UN that the data he presented was not accurate. After all, if you know the narcs are coming you flush or hide your dope, and Saddam had several months to move/destroy whatever he wanted.

You say the inspections were ongoing, but they were of questionable quality, Iraq was steadfastly non-cooperative and the only time they gave nominal aquiescence was in the face of thousands of US troops poised across the border in KSA or Kuwait, not a sustainable situation simply to make inspections happen. You also say they were contained and that most of the world wanted to see how things played out. You fail to mention that much of the world, as defined by the UNSC, were being coopted and bribed by Saddam to lift sanctions, the very trigger he was waiting for to reconstitute many weapons programs. With China, Russia and France on his payroll and growing influence in UK politics (can you say George Galloway et. al.?) how long do you think it would have been before the US was the sole veto maintaining these sanctions? How do you think this would have played out in your world opinion model? I don’t believe containment was a feasible long-term solution to removing the Ba’athist government and Saddam’s power.

I believed armed conflict with Saddam was eventual and that we did well to choose its timing. The risks of uncertain WMD status, regional instability and perpetuating the “paper tiger” image that emboldened AQ and its allies balanced against the potential benefits of having a strong regional ally, removing a committed unpredictable enemy and presenting a multiple-front threat to Iran combined to make it the right action at the time.

They were also vehemently against helping Europe against Hitler until Pearl Harbor, almost allowing the total sujugation of the entire Continent to Nazism.

“It’s time to declare this war over and draw down the troops. Not because we were forced out of Iraq, but because we have achieved the objectives of a stabilized Iraq.

The Iraqis have been battle hardened and are ready to step up.”

I am all for that, how about 63 years after we get out of Europe…….. Let the euroweenies should be battlehardened by now huh……

No huh, figures……….

One note of caution I would add to all this giddiness: The new Iragi Constitution recognizes Islam as the official State religion.

That is the fly in the ointment IMHO.