Not that long ago, a gent named Hans Blix and approximately 250 weapons inspectors went to Iraq to search for Weapons of Mass Destruction. After 111 days and no nukes to show for it, G.W. Bush declared "They've had enough time," and a lot of Americans mocked them as incompetent, inept, etc. The inspections ceased and the invasion began.
Well, then. It has now been 115 days since the U.S. occupied Iraq. Those now searching for such weaponry have considerably more manpower and considerably less standing in their way. Yet, apart from a few pieces of bric-a-brac that Bush and his loyalites have tried to pass off as threatening, no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been unearthed. They weren't even used during the invasion when they might have mattered.
Are there any? I don't know. Like most, I'm skeptical that any will ever be found and also skeptical that if they are, most of the world will ever believe we didn't plant them there. But I'm willing to be convinced Iraq was as much of an immediate threat as some said, and depending on how things go there over the next few years, even willing to agree that the invasion was a good thing. I think it's way too early to say that the U.S. lives and resources were well-invested. That will ultimately have to be judged by those who have no vested interest in spinning the outcome to help or hinder Bush in the next election.
In the meantime, I can only wish we had the kind of political discourse in this country where the folks who said, "Blix is blind. We must invade before Saddam nukes us all" could admit that, however illogical it might have seemed at the time, perhaps the inspectors were correct. This is what happens too often in our politics and maybe in some of our lives: That tendency to take a position and defend it to the death, denying all evidence to the contrary. Alas, politics has gotten so cutthroat in this country that no one dares be statesmanlike enough to admit that maybe the other side isn't or even wasn't full of crap. At best, they occasionally retreat to the passive voice and admit, "mistakes were made," without admitting what they were or who made them. Or they say "I accept the responsibility" after making crystal clear that someone else was really to blame.
My opinion of our so-called leaders has never been high and I'm afraid it's getting lower with each passing month. So is my respect for people who see these flaws, but only in the opposition — for example, people who think Clinton was a liar but Bush is honest. I used to imagine that a politician would come along who could rise above such rhetoric and bridge the partisan divide. I'm not sure I even want that person, if he or she even exists, to emerge nowadays. They'd eat him alive.