Originally Posted by daswig

OK, then let me ask you this. There are people who say we invaded Iraq both at the wrong time, and for the wrong reasons (ie Saddam was not a threat, because there were no WMDs). Aren't these generally the same people who are screaming that Bush screwed up by not protecting those sites, because terrorists could get ahold of the stuff to hurt us? Isn't there a bit of a dichotomy there? I mean if we unjustifiably invaded because Saddam didn't have WMDs to give to terrorists, but Bush didn't do anything to protect the stuff Saddam had that terrorists wanted, which is it? Can it in fact be both ways?