[FlamesAddiction]

I don't think the question was ever; "Is Zarqawi in Iraq?". Zarqawi wasn't actually a prominent figure in Iraq until after the invasion. The question was; "What is Saddam Hussein's reationship with Al Qaeda".

Rumsfeld and Bush insinuated on several occasions that Iraq's government was somehow supporting al Qaeda terrorists that might attack the U.S. That was never proven, and in fact it was pretty much disproved. The presence of Zarqawi is really not important as there are people like him all over the world. You throw a dart at a map of Saudi Arabia (or another so-called ally) and we would probably find another guy just like Zarqawi.

On WMD, Iraq was in a precorious position. It was a mistake for Saddam Hussein to get rid of his weapons without documenting everything. But we should also try and understand why he did it, and why he always wanted a question mark hanging over him. Iran was quickly become a larger power in the region, and if Iran thought that Iraq was weak, it is very possible they would have invaded Iraq. The next best thing to having WMD is giving the impression that you "might" have them. I believe that was Hussein's intention, but Bush didn't seem to think diplomatically enough to realize that. It's my opinion that inpections were finally starting to work, but it seems like Bush just fast-tracked the war at that point. That is when all the Al Qaeda-Hussein connections and innuendo started being thrown around, almost as if to create a smoke screen.

On the failed UN resolutions, the UN also wanted a war avoided. It's hard to pull the UN card when making a case for war, when the UN was quite adament about having no invasion of Iraq.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the U.S. has every right to take whatever actions it needs to, to make sure it is protected. I just never believed Iraq was the threat it was made out to be- and I have doubts that Bush or Rumsfeld honestly thought so either. How could they with barely any evidence of any thing?