Strick -
Another possibility - perhaps they were percieved as uncooperative because they couldn't show WMDs that didn't exist (not because they were afraid for their skins but because they didn't exist. Why did we know they had bio/chem weapons? Simple enough, we gave them to them. Yes these type of weapons are easy to make and easy to deploy. effect afterward is a totally different matter. The whole point to the argument is the Bush led the U.S. right or wrong into an invasion of Iraq (to call it a war would be offensive to anyone who ever fought in a real war). I had absolutely no doubt in my mind that we would win after what happened in '91.

The premise for the war was:

- humanitarian - but what Saddam did before and immediately after Desert Storm was not enough to justify American or U.N. action at that time. I agree it's a good thing he's gone but what's going to happen now could be worse than if we had left him alone.

- WMDs - Almost all of the reports said that he had unaccounted for stockpiles (would you be surprised to learn that we can't always account for things as well, and I'm talking about A-1 Abrams tanks here, not something that you can easily lose or hide). This wasn't a good enough reason for everyone to let Clinton to go to war even with them shooting at our planes every so often. Every action taken by Clinton in regards to Iraq was called "wagging the dog". What's surprising to me is that they believed the reports on Iraq but absolutely nothing else including Bin Laden.

- 9/11 Connection - Not true / never true. The terrorists aboard the planes were almost exclusively Saudis. That hasn't been a reason to invade Saudi or call for a regime change.

- Nuclear program - (pronounced New-Clee-Arr, sorry that annoys the hell out of me)yes they had one at one time. Doesn't seem to have turned out to be worth much and the evidence seemed to be a story about Yellow Cake Uranium which was discounted prior to the invasion.

The plain truth of the matter is that Bush did what he wanted to do / believed was necessary to do. I believe that he discounted anything that didn't support his view of things. Did he lie? No, everything that he showed us supported his conclusion. That the conclusion seems to be faulty now is the problem. It would suit him better to say that:
"The Buck Stops Here! I made the decision, I sent the troops in harms way based on what I believed at the time to be true. We have since found the intelligence to be faulty at best."

Instead he (or more precisely those working for him) are blaming everyone and anybody else for the decision. In my job if I make a right decision and things go well I give the credit to my troops for doing a good job. If I happen to get credit for the work as well than that's icing on the cake. If I make the decision and things go bad then it is my fault entirely. For a Commander In Charge, Bush hasn't figured out that sometimes the skipper goes down with the ship.

I also believe that although this has helped the people of Iraq but it has done exactly what the folks against the war have said it would do as well. It has made Martyrs out of the hundreds killed in battle by our troops. Each and every mistake made by our troops will be magnified by the countries that hate us and will be great for their recruiting efforts and harden their hatred towards us. It has also taken the troops away from our country when we need them the most for securing our own borders. The war also took needed troops away from Bin Laden and the Taliban and has unfortunately allowed them to re-group to a certain degree when they needed to be brought under control and Afghanistan needed to be fully stabilized. The fact that Halliburton and its subsidiaries got most of the contracts (no bid) because they have the expertise really only made sense. Unfortunately they are not handling the contracts with the appropriate amount of care that they should be and this is causing further headaches for the administration.

But once again "Oval Office - The Buck Stops Here!" should be the motto.