What if we never invaded Iraq and ten years from now a nuke goes off in a US city and we discover Saddam financed the operation...or maybe lent out his nuclear scientists to terrorists....or maybe allowed the safe passage of plutonium through his country etc etc.

Would people then say, "you know, we should have went in there and done something. Bush really failed by standing on the sidelines and doing nothing about Saddam/Iraq".

Sure, its easy to say things like that. But isn't that what some people said about Clinton? Didn't they say Clinton failed by not taking out Bin Laden and Al-qaida when he had the chance? Sometimes history does repeat itself.

Would you all rather we did nothing and not know what exactly was going on in Iraq? Or would you rather we took the chance even if it meant we might be wrong. And as far as that is concerned, I don't think the WMD is that clearcut. Maybe 5-20 years from now, we will really know the status of WMD. Everybody expects that we should know the truth and that everything should be clear. We didn't find any...thus they must have never existed right? Maybe or maybe not. Is the truth sometimes hard to come by. You bet it is. To this day nobody knows for sure who killed JFK, and that happened in our own country.

While I am not a Bush-lover, I do love my country and I can't stand the fact that so many people are so quick to judge......believing they know exactly what is going based on the news they watch or listen. If you believe what the news reports and that it is not skewed in any way, then I guess Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy right?

If you believe the news, then you also probably believe the ATF burning down the Davidian compound in Waco was an accident and that Koresh was a child-raping maniac. It took what, 2 years for the truth to come out about Waco. If you never saw the documentary about Waco...you need to see it. It's appalling how badly we were all lied to.