Amos, I too have some real problems with how the administration has handled this. I differ with you on whether some level of military intervention was advisable; I believe it was, for the reasons I articulated in my earlier post. But I agree with you that the Bush administration has much to answer for in the way they have carried out this war.

However, I continue to believe that if you had not heard those other reasons prior to March 2003, you weren't paying close enough attention. I heard all of them, many of them in some of the most important speeches made by administration offiscials in late 2002 and early 2003 justifying military intervention (such as the 2003 State of the Union address, and Colin Powell's address to the UN). Admittedly, the belief that he had and/or was acquiring WMD was at the top of the list, with concerns about potential collusion between Saddam's regime and Islamic terror organizations in second place. But the other reasons I summarized in my earlier message -- Saddam's established history of belligerence towards his neighbors in the Middle East, his brutal treatment of his own people, his targeting of US and British forces patrolling the no-fly zones, the failure of the economic sanctions, and the desirability of establishing a democratic model for other Middle Eastern states to emulate -- were all part of the rationale that was articulated at length before the first shot was fired.