Bush's reasons for Iraq war have all been dismantled

Bush's reasons for Iraq warhave all been dismantled
EDITOR:
I've been examining the primary drumbeats, given by the Bush administration, to invade Iraq. In total, all have been proved to be without merit.
1. Weapons of mass destruction.
Colin Powell told the world, at the United Nations, that Saddam had 500 to 10,000 tons of chemical and biological weapons stockpiled, pictures of mobile chemical labs, aluminum tubes to reconstitute nuclear material and other so-called evidence to make the case that Saddam was a threat to the United States. Cheney and Rumsfeld stated they knew Saddam had WMD and Rumsfeld said, "We know where they are!" Bush stated, with great emphasis that Saddam was purchasing uranium from Africa according to British intelligence.
2. The Saddam/bin Laden connection making the case that 9/11 was a result of that connection.
3. Iraq was an eminent threat to the United States. If Iraq was a threat, why did the country fall with little resistance? If Saddam had WMD, and the capability to deliver them, why didn't he use them?
For several months Bush announced repeatedly, "If Saddam doesn't declare his WMD, we will have to disarm him!" It's been established through "The Long Road to War," aired by PBS, and "The Project for a New America," designed by Paul Wolfowitz, that attacking Iraq was planned in the early '90s. Yet, we were told Mr. Bush hadn't decided to invade Iraq. By the way, hundreds of weapons inspectors couldn't find any WMD, and the Bush administration continued to say there are WMD.
Now, the Bush machine has changed its reasons for invading a nearly defenseless country. It's blaming faulty intelligence, saying that Saddam was a brutal dictator and that Iraq needs to have democracy. Lately, our compassionate, conservative mis-leader was questioned about why no WMD have been found? His answer, "It makes no difference!"
I wonder if "it makes no difference" to the thousands of dead and wounded (Iraqi, American and others). Does it make a difference that billions of dollars have been spent taking revenue away from necessities for the American people?
I'm in "SHOCK AND AWE" as I sit in my apartment with the thermostat set a 62 and my medical benefits, that I pay $90 a month for, are cut.
What is the honest reason for invading Iraq? Isn't the handwriting on the wall? Isn't profiteering evident for Halliburton and other big business supporters of our appointed president and his regime?
What is happening to the oil revenue from Iraq that was supposed to fund Iraq's reconstruction? Why is there money for every necessity for the Iraqi people, and Americans are left needing medical care, schools, housing, food and money to pay high fuel bills?
JANET WALLS
Youngstown
The secret behind free trade summed up in a word: greed
EDITOR:
It's amazing to see people who still don't get the reason behind much of this free trade.
People write in stating how companies need to pay workers oversees higher wages. That goes against their motives.
Think about it: Companies are moving out of Mexico to China to capitalize on cheaper labor. Once again: Companies are leaving Mexico to pay cheaper wages. If that doesn't convince people of the tremendous greed of these corporations, then nothing will.
BOB LOCKIEC
Struthers