The problem is false propaganda and false blame
previously written by myself, on the subject:
If Bush lied to take us to war, then every single country in the UN Security Council was in on it, and so were almost all of the Democrats. Sure, they stabbed him in the back for political gain once we were past the point of no return and continued from then on to Seditiously try to harm the war effort by killing public support and leaking top secret information to the New York Traitors Time about how we were tracking Usama so he caught on and we lost track of him, and other sensitive information.
Not going into Iraq after their thwarting the treaty and the 17 UN Resolutions in a row would have been stupid anyway, but with our intelligence and the intelligence services of every country in the UN Security Council saying he most likely had WMD (because he put so much effort into hiding something from the inspectors, finding out where they would be and cultivating spys in the UN that told him the movements, it made no sense for him to do that while hiding nothing, and with his moles it made sense why they could never find WMD).
Now, with all that on Saddam, and the intelligence services of all those countries saying Saddam was an eminent threat to use WMD against the US and others, and considering the threats Saddam had made ... What if GWB had said ...
awww, just forget about it. What kind of a complete moron would that make him? I mean seriously, how absolutely idiotic is it to suggest that he should have just done nothing?
Sure, some countries strongly objected to the invasion. France, Russia, China, others who were not in the Security council like Germany ... but Russia and China had something serious going with Saddam, that something was a take over and control of the middle east. Can you even imagine the implications of that if they had pulled it off? Both Russia and China aided Saddam in the war. Even France and Germany had government officials bribed and great prospective oil contracts promised. They never in a million years thought Saddam would actually hold out all the way to the bloody end.
So they didn't find a lot of WMD, even though they did find precursors to chemical weapons that would take hours to mix and manufacture up to weapons grade all together. The statement by an Iraqi Air Force General that they had sent out WMD on aircraft to Syria in several loads on cargo plans, just disregard that too. Why not.
The way our intelligence made the definitive announcement, there was absolutely no WMD in Iraq. That's very odd. Intelligence reports by professionals don't make definitive statements about unprovable negative conclusions. Saying there is no WMD in an entire area the size of Iraq? Definitively? Something very weird about that. More so since AFTER they made that statement, they found a number of hidden fighter aircraft buried, they didn't find those before, what if that had been a WMD stock pile? It could still be out there, could be in Syria, could be why they found mustard gas residue in the Tigris river. That there was NO WMD is not decided. I mean the people who said NO WMD are the same people who said YES WMD, do you all of a sudden trust them more? Because you want that conclusion to be true? I mean think about it.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
