It's a simple enough question. The United States, in beating the war drum, insisted that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction. They weren't, of course, but that was the case made to both the American people for their general approval and to congress for it's legal approval. We invade, and absolutely no evidence of the weapons is found. Soon, support for the war begins collapsing and the Bush administration has to jump from one foot to the other insisting we invaded Iraq to help the Iraqis who were living under a dictatorial regime. As it stands, in 2001, that invasion and occupation will almost certainly go down in history as a war based on an obvious lie (well, a pair of lies: the WMDs and the supposed links to al Qaeda, which also proved demonstrably false). The Bush administration's legacy will be secured as such, and future wars of aggression for resources with absolutely no merit, such as the proposed war with Iran, will likely not happen because of Iraq. Public pressure to end the war in Afghanistan, it seems, is also influenced by the dishonesty of invading Iraq. Personally? I'm glad the truth is out, and I sincerely hope the fumbling of the Bush administration on Iraq will prevent unnecessary future wars. It could even eventually be that the frauds and failures of the Iraq War will be the straw that breaks the military industrial complex's back, though perhaps not likely. From the perspective of the Bush administration, however, it seems inconceivable that they wouldn't think to plant evidence to support their assertions. At one point, there was serious talk at the highest ranks of government to paint a US plane to look like a UN plane and arrange for it to be shot down over Iraqi airspace to start a war. Would planting evidence really be so difficult or outlandish? By not planting it, they essentially undermined their entire plan. What do you think? Do you think they thought it too big a risk? Do you think they didn't consider it? Or could there be some other reason?