Read other letters about this article
There were 2 main reasons that we went to war in Iraq.
First, as the Spanish Ambassador very eloquently explained when announcing that country's support for the war, it was because, when Saddam was told (after his venture into Kuwait) that there would be severe consequences if he did not abide by certain internationaly-mandated requirements, and then failed to abide by them, the UN and the West--if they were to maintain any credibility or maoral authority, had to step in and do what they said they would do.
Secondly, check the newspaper archives from 2002 and 2003. It is quite clear that Saddam--who had and had used WMD in the early 90s, would not allow the weapons inspectors to conduct unhindered searches for WMD. This is why almost every country and politician at the time thought Saddam had WMD. Look it up and see what Bill Clinton and others had to say back then. In short, because there was no way to verify that Saddam did not still have WMD, it was reasonable to believe that he did.
These two reasons were sufficient to support going to war.
The left has been in all-out revisionist mode since then. They have argued--without a shred of evidence or even logic--all sorts of crazy things like Bush went to war to avenge his father; he went to war for oil (whatever that means); he went to war for Haliburton; he knew there were no WMDs but "lied so millions died."
If Iraq becomes a democracy of sorts in the middle east--and there seems to be a pretty good chance it will, Bush's reputation will fare much better down the road than it does now. Especially when the books come out--and they will come out--detailing the reasons for the current economic crisis. In short, the notion that a few rich Republicans were the reason will be shot down and the connection between the Dems and laws and policies allowing people who could not afford a mortgage to take them on. There is much blame to go around but so far only a few have shared in it. That will change.