[mburbank]

Here's what I draw from that story, and other similar reports.

At very least, the Bush adminsitration knew there was no nuclear threat. We made no attempt to secure nuclear facilities and as we'd already stressed major concern was radiocative materials being distributed to terrorists, I can only assume we were certain nothing of the kind could take place. Any other explanation requires a level of incompetence and criminal negligence I put past even the Bush administration.

Whatever intelligence we had that Iraqis had a red line and were ready to employ chemical weapons was utterly false. If they collapsed to quickly to use them, some evidence would have been left behind. If it was all spirited away, they di not intend to use it. Either way, that intelligence should be investigated. At best it was poor intelligence work an we should learn from our mistakes. At worst, we were lied to.

The lack of preparation to send in rapid inspection teams or even have them ready again suggests the administration knew their assertions prior to the war regarding WMD were HIGHLY exagerated. If one believes that Bush et al absolutely believed what they were saying, what excuse iss there for not having WMD inspection teams at the ready instead of the haphazard winding down when not all the sites have even been investigated? If we were not lied to, hasn't this process made WMD far more avaiable to looters, black marketeers and terrorists? Wasn't this the major justification for war?

I see only two possabilities.
A.) We were lied to.
or
B.) Our efforts before, during and after the war have been irresponsible, incompetent and endanger our allies and ourselves.

If someone has a better spin on this, I'm more than up for hearing it.