Apparently you missed most of the pre-war rhetoric pdad. Our current fearless leader and his minions endlessly trumpeted the Iraq/Al Queida connection to the point where opinion polls showed that over 60% of the people belived that Saddam's regime was directly complicit in the 9/11 attack. For an insiders view read Karen Kwiatkowski's archives at lewrockwell.com. As for the possibility of an Iraqi biological or nuclear attack see Gordon Prathers archive at wnd.com. The plain truth is and was that Saddam's nuclear capability was destroyed post Dessert Storm, and any biological weapons that he had stockpiled, and which he lacked the capability to reproduce after years of inspections, had degraded to uselessness.
Let us pray that we never decide to go it alone and invade every country that breaks UN edicts. Otherwise we will be invading Isreal, Sudan, Rawanda, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, and a host of others.
As for bold STRATEGIC moves, we have a little piece of paper that you may have heard of. We call it the constitution, and it prohibits these types of "adventures" by the executive branch of our government. To use your arguement what kind of precedent would we be setting if, as the final arbiters of our government, we allow this type of blatantly illegal activity from someone that is bound by oath and duty to uphold the law?
None of us has a crystal ball, but the hand writing is clearly on the wall that the strategic consequenses of this poorly contrived debacle will not bode well for the future of our dealings with the rest of the world. VWW