In Syria? That would be convienient as they're next in the crosshairs. So you're question here is: If Syria had Iraq's weapons, does that justify war in Iraq? Not that we have any real evidence of this. There is just as much conjecture as there was in the Iraq case (if not more). This lack of evidence is what led to this "Intelligence Failure," right? If we actually looked at the facts and the facts showed that Syria had the weapons...Why the hell would we attack Iraq and not Syria in the first place? But we haven't built this case on facts (we would have found the weapons if we did). Our efforts would have been better spent learning more before we rushed in and wasted not just life, but billions of dollars. That counts as a MAJOR fuck up. If we had the means to take over, we had the means to gain conclusive evidence to do so. We would have probably not have needed to act unilaterally by then. Instead, we get Bush, who knew that the intelligence was lacking, tell us it's a sure thing. There was no maybe. That's what makes it a lie, and not just wrong. There were maybes' that "they" were out to get us, but I don't see that as thought out reasons for war. Thinking might prevent future "Intelligence Failures." If we go into Syria (who offered us aid in Iraq) we had better have real evidence instead of paranoid delusions and unsubstantiated claims.
If there are any weapons, I say we should give Bush 48hours to produce them, else he and his family should leave the country.

RE: Blair Defends War Decision