amazing. finding no WMD would destroy what's left of the last vestiges of US and UK credibly in the world. the action in Iraqi was predicated on the existence of WMD in Iraq. Blair would surely be dumped and the far left installed. in short a nightmare.

I'm surprised at this result as well.

I'm not surprised...

The black shirts, the human shields, the executing of coalition soldiers probably piss off more Americans then a container of Anthrax...

With time, the WMDs will be found, probably not the nuke material, but chemicals in some form.

Does anyone even think Bush cares about the Iraqi people...

He is essentially a spoon-fed frat boy. If there are no significant WMD found...then one has to dig a little deeper and find the real reason this happened.

Bush has a hard enough time caring about the American people....

What is surprising? that people will stand to their decisions even if they are based on fallacies? That is basic human nature.

I think people have no choice but to take that position. So far we keep having reports of WMD cache's that end up being wrong, intelligence that once we cross the scary "red line" WMD will be used (when in fact our troops took of their WMD protective gear on crossing the "red line.")

The only thing that would cause a drop in support for the war is if we don't find oil. That would have a lot of people saying "this was a mistake"

As far as executing captured soldiers, the US has done this in modern times, does that mean any country can go to war with us?

Oh, Saddam has WMD, we just won't find any until we talk with the Iraqi scientists who were in on their development. And they won't talk until they know Saddam's a goner.

The important thing right now is that none of them are used. Not on our troops, not on 'disloyal' Iraqi units and not on Iraqi civilians. That's why we are taking out the delivery systems: Artillery and missile units, and aircraft/drone assets.

Still, I have to say that it IS fun listening to the kids in the back seat who are whining, "Are we there yet?"

While I agree that politically it might be a challenge to deal with, the argument for actually going to Iraq was never predicated on finding WMD.

Read Threatening Storm by Pollack and you'll understand the Bush administration's thinking. The basics of it is that even if he doesn't have them now, there is no way to prevent him from building them in the future, because the international community has shown itself unwilling to help contain him and his borders are too pourus to prevent illigal oil smuggling.

In short, he is the problem, not whether or not at this very minute he was those weapons.

Unfortunately most people cannot appreciate this argument so the Bush administration had to take a different tact and frame the argument as if it was about the weapons right now.

There are another set of reasons on top of the potential for WMD, related to terrorism and the fact that Iraq borders 6 major countries in the region, 5 of which are in various degrees threats to America by their support for terrorism, either implicitely or explicitely.

It's not "all about ooooooil"..

Get a clue.

From a strictly moral standpoint, I don't think anyone should be surprised that the US public feels justified in this intervention. I mean, seriously, this IS a liberation. This regime is just THAT brutal. I can understand anti-war protestors who feel it isn't the job of the US armed forces to be world cop or world tyrant-exterminator, but no one can seriously contend the Iraqis won't be far better off than they were under Saddam's boot.

I happen to believe that Bush cares about the Iraqis. I think those who don't have simply fallen into a trap of their own devising. If you demonize a man long enough, you come to believe your created cariacature. This happened with the Right and Clinton, and it's happened with the Left and Bush.

WMD's will be found, if not in iraq, In syria on Iraqi trucks parked in syrian warehouses

From substantial rumors that those WMDs and their connectied scientists were sent to Syria, those "3 ships" that haven't been mentioned lately, all those other scientists whose families were/are under "Saddam's benevolent care"; we will find out what went on, it will just take time. Will the world believe what we fine, no, but who cares if that 'stuff' is no longer available in any way to Saddam; that's the most important part.

I would ask the war critics this. Is it OK with you if regimes that commit, as a matter of policy, torture, murder, rape, chemical warfare, wars of aggression, and genocide? Not to mention every war crime in the book and some that may even be brand new?

If yes, I have nothing further to say. And to tell you the truth, I think this IS what Europe is saying.

But let's assume your answer is no. In that case there's a second question. What are you going to do about it? If the answer is "anything short of war", then that is to do nothing, because regimes like this respond to nothing else. And, true enough, the United States has "done nothing" almost as often as the rest of the world.

But now we're doing something about it. We're taking this Hitler out. We're doing it as carefully and humanely as possible, but we're doing it.

How any person, or country, who claims to be ethical can oppose this is beyond
me, honestly.

ANd I'm no right-winger. I'm normally a centrist Democrat. Based on talking to folks at work, I think a lof of middle-of-the-road Americans feel somewhat like I do.

I don't offer this as a statement of "I'm right". Other viewpoints are possible. But for those who don't understand why America feels the way this poll reveals, I thought it might be on-topic.

>Does anyone even think Bush cares about the Iraqi people...

Who cares what Bush thinks? I care what he *does*, and he is freeing 22 million people from Saddam Hussein.

The UN has lots of good intentions & good thoughts, but DID precious little. So much for good intentions.

As for the oft-repeated & extremely tedious claim that this is all about oil or profits, etc., time will tell. And I have faith in this country, even if many do not.

It is amazing that so many don't seem to realize the true significance of the attacks on 911. It was a declaration of war on the United States, which is as significant today as was the bombing of Pearl Harbor in WWII. The difference is that THIS WAR AGAINST FREE PEOPLE is being waged covertly by legions of terrorists FUNDED AND NURTURED by a wide variety of foreign entities and nation states as opposed to the standing armies that threatened free people more than a half century ago.

When the US fought Germany and Japan in WWII it did not just attack their troops, it fought the regimes, which armed them and sent them to attack. It would have been fruitless to fight one without fighting both. The same is true in this undeclared terrorist war. Fighting terrorists without being willing to fight the regimes which support them and send them to attack can never succeed.

Free people today are being threatened by despots, just as the despots of WWII threatened free people. To end the war, the supporting regimes must be overthrown or convinced to change their ways. Hopefully, Saddam's fall will cause other surrounding regimes to reconsider. If not, the war will go on until all regimes willing to support it have been eliminated.

We are in a new era and facing a new threat to free people. Those who would indict the Bush and call the US imperialists should consider the following:

In February Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared on MTV to discuss the US position with regard to our becoming an imperial power. A viewer in Norway asked why Europeans consider the U.S. to be the "Satan of contemporary politics." Here's a portion of what the Secretary said:

"Far from being the Great Satan, I would say that we are the Great Protector. We have sent men and women from the armed forces of the United States to other parts of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression. We defeated Fascism. We defeated Communism. We saved Europe in World War I and World War II.

"And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, "Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems, which they have embraced totally to their soul.

"And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are."

"the argument for actually going to Iraq was never predicated on finding WMD."

Oh man. Our underlying reasons may not have been. They include everything from defendable positions such as Saddam's tyranny, to more self interested issues such having to move out of Saudi, and oil.

But our government is on the record very publically stating WMD as the legal issue.

To waffle on this now would not be good.

"But our government is on the record very publically stating WMD as the legal issue.

To waffle on this now would not be good."

Agreed, that was my point. But don't forget the argument of Iraq being connected to terrorism. If we get one but not the other, I think we've held up our public case. That said, I really don't think it will be an issue, we will find *proof* of WMD.

Face it, people. Saddam is a dictator. That alone is reason enough. They world is getting too small to allow these little rogue nations to bully its citizens around. Frankly, world opinion doesn't mean squat. Most of the world is not free to elect leaders, therefore those leaders have no credibility. Most of the world lacks a free press, so popular opinion doesn't mean squat either.

Duh. The fact Saddam actually had WMD wasn't the issue, it was whether or not he was cooperating with the inspectors and documenting their destruction, which he was bound to do by the cease fire he signed. He wasn't, as even Blix admitted.

The fact that Saddam fired Scuds he supposedly didn't have is enough of a trigger for the war. As it lots of other things.

Finally, I think Bush and co. always considered taking out Saddam as part of the greater war on terror. He does support it, and going by their public statements, many in the Bush administration feel (like most neo-cons) that that Saddam had his paws all over the '93 WTC bombing.

Let's see, freeing 23 million people isn't a valid reason for the war if we don't find WMDs? Right. Sure.

All wars have multiple reasons justifying them. There have to be to get the broadest support. There is nothing devious or conspiratorial about that.

Consider Abraham Lincoln, slavery, and the Civil War.

In an 1862 letter to Horace Greeley

Abraham Lincoln said that he would fight to save the Union whether or not that meant freeing a single slave. Read his letter, it's not long.

Lincoln understood that he had argued that the reason to go to war with the South was to free the slaves he could NEVER have mustered the political support to so. Abolitionists were UNPOPULAR in the North. White Northerners, for the most part, were willing to die for black slaves.

But Lincoln ALWAYS intended to free the slaves.

Deep into the war, he finally came out with the Emancipation Proclamation. That provided a moral reason for the fight and by 1863, the average northerner needed a moral reason. Things were going badly.

And even if Bush is wrong about WMDs, which he isn't, what difference does it make if this war results in eradicating the worst dictatorship on earth, removes a major threat to the region, and eliminates a state sponsor of terrorism?

Americans obviously understand the stakes and are proud that we are freeing the Iraqi people.

In the end, whether or not Bush's rationale was airtight perfect will only matter to the bitter left.

And then the answer to them will be: so you really WERE in favor of keeping the Iraqi people enslaved? Nice morals.

all you people getting your panties twisted up about Dictators - don't forget all the situations where the US has supported and armed brutal dictators, not to mention turning a blind eye on all the atrocities they are committing. Learn your history people!

we helped Saddam, we armed Osama, we supported military dictators in Latin America and Asia... Look at the Saudis! They are a completely non-democratic society who happen to produce most of the members of Al-Quida. Also some of our closest allies! (and producers of oil let's not forget)

The liberation rhetoric is just another bunch of propaganda to get the american people to support the war, just like the lies about WMD and connections to 9/11 were.

Uncle, maybe we should fix the mistakes made in the past and not use them to justify inaction for the present an future. Sure, mistakes have been made (mostly in the name of peace) but that doesn't mean we should do nothing.

Is it really unreasonable to believe that Saddam is linked to terrorists? It seems faily obvious to me.

By the way. Most of the weapons they use came from the eastern block. They probably got one US missile for every 200,000 ak47's.

As someone in one of the blogs said, if you believe that a democracy's inconsistencies make it the moral equivalent of a brutal dictatorship like Iraq, then there's really nothing more to discuss.

R. McLeod,

I will take your Lincoln letter as fact, for the moment anyway, couldn't get the link to work..:(

Ok so Lincoln thought this way, interesting....interesting enough for me to look up...and I will

However, Bush just does not radiate that concern to me...Going off gut feeling I would have to call Bush a war hawk, like Nixon or LBJ....(both horrible Presidents) Considering Rumsfield and Cheney are in his admin...doesn't help either...

Bush is in the same league IMHO.

I voted for Bush and have supported him until this war, why? To me this is all extremely dangerous, policy of premptive strikes alienating nations to such a high degree....etc..etc...

Would people feel safe and comfortable if we suddenly decided to strike at N. Korea? or similarly Iran, both Nuclear-equipped.

Also, Saudi-Arabia is one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism...how come they are not on the axis of evil list?

Finally, what about Osama people...there is your biggest threat to the United States....but we have just brushed him under the carpet.... I would like to spend the 75 billion on finishing up the job in Afghanistan and returning with Osama's head piked.

I don't know but this just does not seem like good foreign policy to me.

Just seeing what is going on in this middle eastern country (Iraq) has opened my eyes to how important it is to help the masses of people throw off the yolk of tin horn, murderous dictators that seem to populate this entire region. Just look at the grip these cockroaches have on the public. The news papers in the entire region are so distorted in their portral of the west. This is a mess that is long overdue to be cleaned up. (God Bless America)

All of you clamoring to state your other justifications for invading and occupying Iraq are just dancing around the fact that THE reason our government told its citizens and the rest of the world that we were going to do this was to disarm the Iraqis of their WMD. If those weapons don't turn out to exist, then OUR LEADERS are liars or dupes or both...plain and simple! That fact stands as unassailable whether you can come up with some other good reason for the war or not.

Plus, this is all ex post facto; none of you were thinking "I really wish the Iraqis could get free and I think it's worth American lives and $200,000,000,000.00" 12 months ago.

Ben Noah, you're right up until the point where you say "Unfortunately most people cannot appreciate this argument" Most people could understand that argument, but most people wouldn't support that kind of realpolitik preemptive bullying if Bush came out and asked them to.

"so the Bush administration had to take a different tact and frame the argument as if it was about the weapons right now." Sure, if by different tact you mean LIE, and by frame the argument you mean DECEIVE. Last I checked, this was a democracy not a preschool.

Mike - I personally would feel much safer if we attacked N. Korea, Iran and every other non-democracy. LBJ was a liberal who inherited the vietnam war from JFK. JFK wanted to liberate S Vietnam just as we did with Kuwait in 91. I believe JFK (who would be a conservative by todays standards) would have sought the Vietnam war through to the end and won. I guess I can only ask you one question; What alternatives to war would you propose?

"I personally would feel much safer if we attacked N. Korea, Iran and every other non-democracy."

You personally would feel much safer. Most of 6 billion other people would feel much less safe. In fact, some would die. Are you really that special? Well, are you?

And anyway will you be the arbiter of what is and is not a democracy? Can a non-democracy get a waiver if they promise to be our client state? How 'bout if they have nuclear weapons?

I got this from a letter to the editor in the Seattle Times, but it seems really relevent right now (this is a paraphrase, i can't remember it exact):
At home, we are asked to trade liberty for security, while we are asking the Iraqis to trade security for liberty. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?