well, i was supportive of the invasion of afghanistan, as i felt there was a direct link between taliban/al qaeda that was justification. i have, however, never been an advocate for the invasion of iraq. there was never any cogent justification made by the administration. wmd's? hell, if we invaded every nation who had wmd's and was crazy enough to use them . . . north korea, iran, sudan, somalia (oh, yeah, we did that already). where would it stop? saddam was a tyrant? gosh, let's check a list of tyrants in the world today and invade their countries. how about spreading democracy? this reverse domino theory that if we spread democracy to one place (iraq) then the countries surrounding it will also succumb to jeffersonian democracy, without having their own jefferson. how about the link between iraq and 9/11? oops, just last week the moron-in-chief stated there was no link between the two. every month or so, this administration trots out another rationalization and, hey, 35% of americans swallow it whole like a bass after a mayfly.
even the republican saint, the only president to be named after a science fiction weapon, ronald raygun, said "trust but verify." i suggest you try to follow his sage words.