Originally Posted by gatorev12
Time has most certainly proven the Senator correct in many ways. He was correct in saying Saddam did not have a delivery system for WMDs--but that wasn't really the worry. A biological or chemical weapon does not need a bomb or rocket to disperse the agents. The fear was a smaller-scale attack that left no traces.
It wasn't just the Saudis we were benefiting, we stood to gain a lot by removing the rallying cry for jihadists--AND also benefit by the Saudis rising in prominence/stature by having them start to combat Iranian/Shi'a influence.
In that sense and that sense only, *some* of the geostrategic goals were successful.
But in many (arguably most) ways, I'm not disagreeing that it was a gigantic waste of lives and money. And I can absolutely understand why many people wouldn't be able to appreciate the big picture given the paltry returns in every other area.
Not to put too fine a point on it but Grahams position was butressed by the letter from the CIA Director, which he quoted in that speech and entered into the record. His assessment that Saddam would not use whatever weapons he had unless attacked was not only logical - Saddam was not suicidal - but critical information for decision makers which was ignored by most of them.