Nak-
The point is this isn't at all a revelation. I wasn't at any board meetings, and I knew we'd be back in Iraq. I knew it in '91. I said then "10 years". I admit my prognostication skills were awry, and I missed it by a couple years, but you can't be seriously trying to say this whole thing comes as a surprise.
One thing is common in the office of the POTUS over the last 12 years; it's seen Iraq as a problem that would be dealt with sooner or later. Bush Jr. chose sooner. We can argue all day long whether he did the right thing with the WMD argument (I think it was a mistake), but the least we can see at this point is there was some basis for it, even if it was inadvisable. Nonetheless, the other aspects of the argument were valid, and aren't really even being challenged by anyone.
So... if the it should come to pass more banned weapons are found, what spurious argument will the left find to attack the war? I'll give Thrawn credit where due... he remains consistant (if wrong IMHO
) in his viewpoint the UNSC was the legal body responsible to call for a resolution to war. The point you're trying to make here just doesn't carry much water.
