I still think this all gets back to the neocon document from the 90s describing their vision for the Middle East. The foundation of the document was toupling Saddam and establishing a democracy in the country.

Many have argued that this document led to current events. Such as Richard Clarke commenting that he was ordered to find links tying Iraq to 9-11. I recently heard a senator say that he believes the administration purposely sabotaged efforts in Afghanistan so they could offer Iraq as a solution.

However, all the administrations efforts have ignored centuries of history. We also have the current events of people telling the administration what they wanted to hear. There's no question in my mind that at a minimum, pre-war information was heavily filtered, despite major questions about the source of the information.

For example, Chalibi. A man who was derided by many, embraced by a few. Now he has a high position in the new govt. Surprised?

>>>>John,
>>>>
>>>>I won't argue the point for a millisecond.
>>>>
>>>>There's a big difference between "trying" and "having". As I recall, the administration's tale was that he "had WMDs".
>>>
>>>Try recalling the full details. It wasn't just "the administration." It was most of the leadership of the free world.
>>
>>With all due respect, John, that's not what I recall. In fact, what I recall is almost the opposite.
>>
>>Didn't the UN inspector, Hans Blix, say that he'd found no evidence of WMDs? Didn't he also ask us for another 60 days to complete his inspection?
>>
>>I admit, I supported us going to war. I didn't believe that our President would send the men and women in the armed services to war if the evidence wasn't conclusive. I was wrong.
>
>Ditto. I took it on faith that the highest officials in our government were not lying to us. They were. Well, maybe lying is too strong a word (although if so not by much IMO) -- let's put it that they actively promoted certain information and withheld other information. What was true and what wasn't was almost irrelevant to them. Their minds were already made up. Whatever term is put to it, they snookered "the American people" they love to talk about into a phony war. Including 2000, and counting, who aren't around to voice their opinions any more.
>
>Hans Blix really got a raw deal at the time, at least in this country. He did his job prudently and professionally. From everything I read about the UN weapons search he was perfectly willing to find WMD and thus give the Bush administration the UN sanction it sought. There just weren't any. And for his trouble he was painted as an appeaser by the chickenhawks in the White House. (Draft Dodgers Central other than Gen. Powell, and he was elbowed out of the way as not "serious" enough, either). If somehow Hans Blix could have been at the helm in DC instead of the fools we had at the helm, and still have, this whole debacle would have been avoided.