This article by Scott Ritter makes a good point about David Kay's statement regarding Iraq's "WMD" in that "we were all wrong."
http://69.20.59.119/docs_04/020804C.shtml
Ritter notes that he and others weren't wrong.
Its great to see Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al fall on their faces on this one. But, I still worry about a "discovery" before the election.
That's why I like Wes Clark's view on the war, which is we needed to go after Al Queada first. Many Americans are really catching on to this thought (not b.c of Clark so much).
Even if Iraq had WMD, we still needed to go after AQ and Bin Laden because THEY were and are the imminent threat to America. Iraq was pinned down by weapons inspectors and even if they had WMD would not have been in a position to harm us or anyone else for quite some time. Bush had plenty of time to give the inspectors in Iraq a chance to do the job. And, we could have had our proper troop deployment in Tora Bora and other parts of Afghanistan. And, we could have maintained our int'l good will from 9/11 and built up support for a later Iraqi mission. We could have always gone after Iraq after we dealt with Bin Laden. Saddam's a bad guy and I'm glad he's gone. But, that was the wrong choice. The world would have been much safer if we chose to put our full military might in the hunt for Bin Laden and AQ.