The problem still remains that the administration has changed the reasons for goign to Iraq numerous times…..its was WMD, than Nuclear capability to simply Saddam was a bad guy…

No, there were always multiple rationales for going to war. You don’t make that big a decision based on only one justification. We believed that Saddam had WMDs, a nuclear program, ties to terrorists and was oppressing the Iraqi people (among other things). We know that Saddam had terrorist ties and was a brutal dictator and was also in violation of the Gulf War cease-fire. We’re almost certain that he did not have WMDs or an active nuclear program in 2003. He did, however, have every intention of restarting both his WMD and nuclear programs once the sanctions regime collapsed.

Fact is all said and done going to Iraq was a mistake. There was never any just cause and to this point nothing has truly been accomplished by goign to Iraq. Nothing at all.

Unless you ignore the fact that both Libya and (if you believe the NIE) Iran suddenly just happened to stop their nuclear programs around the time that Saddam fell. We know that Qadafi gave up his program because of what was happening to Saddam. Had Qadafi not given us all of his nuclear technologies it’s doubtful we would have been able to stop the A.Q. Khan nuclear network out of Pakistan. The fall of Saddam set off a chain of events which led to the world’s largest nuclear tech ring being destroyed, and possibly a stop to Iran’s nuclear program. In what way is none of that a good thing?

The trouble is GW put all his stock with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney. Had he stayed true to what I think were his intentions and beliefs in 2000, we would be better off today.

Bush was forced to change his calculus by the September 11 attacks. An isolationist strategy (like the one he pushed in 2000) doesn’t work in a world of international terrorism. Like it or not, failed states like Afghanistan are threats to us, and we can’t sit back and pretend that we can just retreat behind our own borders.