FINAL ANSWER to "We invaded to rid the world of Saddam"

[eridani]

That wasn't the point of the invasion, and Ari Fleischer said that the invasion was on even if Saddam left. Maybe Kerry could ask "If Saddam had gone into exile with his sons, would Bush still have invaded?"

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/5415227.htm?1c

U.S. troops are headed into Iraq one way or another. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that even if Saddam seeks exile U.S. forces will enter Iraq to disarm it - hopefully without opposition.

Other URLs for that in case that one flakes out.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/iraq/topstories/031803cciraqbush.709e7010.html
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:MIdjUeeOeKMJ:www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/iraq/topstories/031803cciraqbush.709e7010.html+Fleischer+%22if+saddam+seeks+exile%22&hl=en
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:0XcgLWrA8i8J:www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/5415227.htm+Fleischer+%22if+saddam+seeks+exile%22&hl=en

Actual reasons for the invasion? Kerry might ask "What if Iraqis don't want to be our coaling station?"

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17923

Garner added, ''Look back on the Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq is for the next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the Middle East.”

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction", these were dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."