"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
It's been well shown that Iraq under Saddam was no threat to us

Well shown? Hardly.

It seems pretty clear that, compared to the other threats, Saddam wasn't
much of a threat. Based on the pre-invasion intelligence estimates, Iraq:
had no ties to Al Qaeda
had no nuclear weapons
probably had chemical or biological weapons but there were no indications
that they were exported

In comparison, Pakistan (nuclear weapons, exporter of nuclear technology,
direct supporter of the Taliban, direct supporter of terrorists in Kashmir)
and Syria (direct supporter of terrorists, suspected of posessing chemical
and biological weapons) would seem to be far greater threats.

Add in that the invasion does not seem to have diminished the threat that
Iraq was originally claimed to pose. It has been claimed, for example, that
the reason that no chemical & biological weapons were found was because they
were all shipped to Syria. If so, those weapons are even more of a threat
than they were before the invasion. Add in the looting of Iraqi nuclear
material
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...5-wagner_x.htm)
and it is a little hard to see how invading Iraq made us safer.

As it was, the invasion seemed to be designed to "get Saddam" rather than
deal with the claimed threat. Either the people at the top knew there wasn't
a real threat or they failed adequately deal with it by providing enough
resources to secure the borders and known nuclear sites.