Most of Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed by military forces in 1991 during the first Gulf War or by U.N. inspectors after the fighting. The inspections halted just before the invasion.
(the key word in your own quote is "Remnants")
So...were these left over munnitions capable of being launched within forty five mins, and capable of reaching England and the United States geographically?
Or is it more a case of decontamination of known sites which posed little or no threat except to the immediate vacinity? I'm betting on the latter...for the primary reason, that if these bunkers had just been discovered, their would be global news coverage in detail....if they really are anything like the justification given to the United Kingdom...then how come it has taken almost precisely a decade for the allied force to get rid of the threat
If you invaded in 2003...you wouldnt be neutralizing the threat nine and a half years later AFTER most of your invasion contingent had pulled out.
So its either a collosal neglect...Weapons of Mass Distruction in the Capitol, left, in place for nine years, able to be deployed within forty five mins, and with the capacity to reach US and UK cities.
OR....Its just been discovered...in which case where is the bloody press?
or...its nothing...a few things not able to do what the Forty Third President claimed it could do.
Oh...and as we're on this subject...Syria has admitted to having chemical and biological weapons, that not even the Americans knew they had! AND they have threatened to use them if the west intervenes on the current Arab Spring civil war going on.
They probably DO have weapons and probably CAN deploy...but I dont see America rushing to invade them. Neither do I see the United States rushing to invade Iran which is building Nukes, underneith major cities to avoid being disturbed from Israeli Air Strikes.
What I DID see was the United States rushing to distroy a dictator who was playing silly beggers with a bluff that even they didnt truely believe.
I do however give credit to Bush for two things...Firstly, I do believe he had legitamate reasons in wanting to invade Iraq which probably saved the world from Iran. There is a theory that Iran was on the verge of crushing a fragile Iraqi Regieme, apart from the implications of Iraqi Oil falling into Iranian hands...I think that there was a certain amount of distress about what Iran would have then done. Noone mournes the loss of the old regieme thats for sure.
Secondly, despite the fact he realized that he might have been hasty, and realized that his justification might not be prooven, he recognised that once war has been declaired, the burden of responsibility for growth and repair, falls upon the aggressors. He worked against Congress, and infact against the American people by the end of his regnum, because he rightly thought that America, having gone in, had to see it through no matter how long it took, and how many lives were lost. True Liberation is not about Conquest, its about what follows after that. Neither the British, nor the Americans are much good at that, especially in Asia and the middle east. America are slightly better then the British infact as they immediately move towards provincial rule, and had much success with rebuilding Europe.
They also recognise...or maybe President Bush was the last to do this...that its not simply good enough to invade...and that the course must be stayed even when people looose interest or the novelty wears off. I really do wish that Bush had been able to stay in office.
IMHO considering what he faced, he didnt do a bad job. I would say one of his biggest successes, and what the Western World outside of America should be most greatful for, is that he acted against the instincts of American Culture when faced with two cateastrophes. The immediate want for revenge, and to assert ones power after the original terrorist attack in 2001. He remained unbelievable calm and righteous in a time when anyone would have understood him giving into hatred and blind rage.
Secondly...for all that people mocked George for being dumb he saw something that nigh on no other Republican thought of. He showed that he cared not only for his people, but for all peoples when he decided that the Federation had to intervene in the banking crisis. As an American and follower of the constitution, strictly speaking, he should have stood back and watched as his own country and the entire western world plunged into chaos, because the Federal Government...and infact any American Institution should adhere to a strictly self regulational maintainance. Secondly, he should not have given consideration to anyone outside of the Federation because America should be issolationistic. Constitutionally, they do not have to think, or pay heed to anyone outside of their soverignty. At NO time that I can find, across his foreign policy did he ever act unconstituionally. He only acted with the authority of Congress, and he approached the international bodies as one should expect a consitutionalist to do, with appauling disregard...which...is totally in line with the realms of the constituion...as I try to explain to those who dont understand
Besides...I suppose ultimately at least it was worth knowing that the United Nations wasnt all its cracked up to be...better we find out sooner rather then later I suppose.
Pity he couldnt stop the Euro...but I suppose thats a little too much to ask for