Saddam was a monster, a monster that we created by giving him chemical and biological weapons to use against Iran after they kidnapped 70 Americans and held them hostage for 444 days.
It isn't that anyone thinks that Saddam should have been left alone but rather that some rational individuals were paying attention to what David Kay and the U.N weapons inspectors were saying, 'We haven't found anything yet. Give us time to do our work.' In retrospect it seems that they were right, Saddam didn't have any Weapons of Mbutt Destruction.
We should have stayed out of Iraq because of the incredible instability that invading has caused in the region. President Bush, Sr. knew this and cited it as the reason he didn't continue on the road to Bagdad when Saddam's forces were in full retreat.
The only reason I can see for going into Iraq was to create instability and a protracted conflict. Why? The defense industry and intelligence community had been in a slump during the Clinton years and needed a shot in the arm. Long term instability in the region ensures a continual stream of defense related contracts and rising stock prices in the defense sector.
I'm not necessarilly against their reasoning, but is it too much to ask that our elected officials at least be honest about their motivations? Personally I think our money would have been better spent defending our borders.
LouisianaJon
