The answers

I've had discussions before with family and friends regarding the reasoning behind going to war in Iraq, and I'm sure most of you have too. You don't get too far into the debate and then they bail on it with that "what about those WMD's?". I've had that followed with the condescending laugh, even. Well, at The New Media Journal, Scott Malensek has a comprehensive article regarding the whole discussion. I'm sure the anti war crowd would have no interest and would just proclaim it as "just his opinion". It's not though as he refers to documented facts (and points you to them) while analyzing. Scott refers quite a bit to the report filed by the Iraq Study Group and their findings are not exactly what the liberal media reported. They cherry picked what they wanted out of that report the same way they cherry picked the 911 commissions report. I've seriously had a friend tell me that the 911 commission didn't say anything had been done wrong by the Clinton administration. The guy swore he had read the report also.

Anyway, a great read on the Iraq war debate from The New Media Journal via Victory Caucus - What If Iraq Was Never Invaded?

• The Iraq War is the debate of the new millennium. Five years after the fact, people should be able to look at the decision to invade more as a matter of history than through political partisanship. That’s certainly not always the case, but as more time passes the clarity and focus of hindsight increases. First and foremost, one thing is clear: the debate over the decision to invade is over. Saddam’s regime was invaded, removed, and the decision was made. Now, the debate is not what to DO in terms of Saddam’s regime, but what could have been DONE (the so-called “coulda-should-woulda” discussion).

He covers all the options available to us at the time and evaluates what happens under each option. There's also valuable information you may not have known. It's a long but worthwhile read. Come back to if you don't have the time now.