Friedman Fried?

I usually agree with Thomas Friedman, but this column is a bit loopy. Sure it is a good moral thing that Saddam and his sons are gone, because they were ruthless killers*. But to just sweep under the rug the idea perhaps the Administration was lying the entire time about WMD, and to disregard the massive financial costs, and human lives that were lost in fighting the war, is stupid. Not to mention the continued uncertainty of what will become of the country (U.S. troops killed 15 Iraqi protestors yesterday, that is not going to sit well). His argument simply fails logically - I mean if all we want to do is stop the killing of innocent people, there are lots of places that needs to be done - in this country, and throughout the world. Still the question remains, are there WMD or not - if there were, where are they? This was suppose to be, in part, a war on terrorism, not just a moral crusade. There is a lot of pain and suffering in the world, are we going to have the Pentagon and the corporations who make billions of dollars in profit from the military decide when and where the U.S. should go on its next moral crusade?

As far as I'm concerned, we do not need to find any weapons of mass destruction to justify this war. That skull, and the thousands more that will be unearthed, are enough for me. Mr. Bush doesn't owe the world any explanation for missing chemical weapons (even if it turns out that the White House hyped this issue). - THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN The Meaning of a Skull

* Where are Saddam and his sons? Were they killed? The New Yorker suggests they planned on having plastic surgery before Baghdad fell. Do they still have access to Swiss bank accounts? What will they do with that money?