[hodwik]

Just about everyone thought there were WMDs. The decision had been made, yes, but because we thought there were hidden caches and moving caches that the weapons inspectors were ill-equipped to find, and Saddam was comfortable with everyone (Iran especially) believing that.

(I mean, people are still digging up 1980s-era WMDs in Iraq. They're pretty easy to hide, they're not large. It wasn't an insane thing to believe.)

Saddam just made a bad bet when he thought we would go back to inspections the last time, he had played his little good guy/bad guy game too long.

And in the end, good riddance, we should have taken him out WMDs or not -- the problem wasn't an invasion in Iraq, but a poorly planned invasion in Iraq.

[EliRivers]

Just about everyone thought there were WMDs

That is just plain not true. Loud voices shouted over and over that it was true, it was true, here's a bullshit report we made up, believe us believe us. That's not the same as just about everyone.

I read the UN inspection summary myself. It was pretty clear that there was no decent evidence of WMDs (barring some leftover materials from the discontinued productions), or a continuing program to make them. Many of the intelligence people involved agreed. That we were lied to very loudly doesn't mean everyone thought it was true. There was a predetermined agenda; justify an invasion. Make up whatever bullshit we have to. You've got this "curveball" guy making up nonsense bullshit stories that no intelligence analyst in his right mind would believe? Just order the intelligence guys to shut up and get on with invading.

And in the end, good riddance, we should have taken him out WMDs or not -- the problem wasn't an invasion in Iraq, but a poorly planned invasion in Iraq.

Why should we have taken him out? We did it, and it made things worse. A lot, lot worse. How can you possibly, with the benefit of hindsight, maintain that invading Iraq was a good thing to do? Have you seen the state of the place now?

[hodwik]

>"Have you seen the state of the place now?"

I'm not saying the war was free, no war is. Iraq took 116,000 people.

That being said, that number could have been much lower had the initial surge been stronger.

And we knew that Hussein was willing to risk great civilian casualties. We had seen 800,000 deaths as the result of his war with Iran, an estimated half a million killed by his secret police, 180,000 kurds, and so on.

What's more, his policies bankrupted the country, putting many into poverty.

Iraq has now seen a 600% increase in nominal GDP. They now have a national government with representatives from Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish groups. There is now twice as much electricity produced in their country. Graduation rates are up from 50% to 80% of students. The long-term benefits will be significant.