For just a minute, suspend your opinions about the situation in Iraq.
I have a point to make about (economic) rationality that I think both sides should appreciate - namely that there is a framing effect clouding an important point.
In short, a framing effect is a common type of irrational behavior that can't yet be fully explained by psychologists or economists, but which they both know is important. More specifically, a framing effect occurs when you ask the same question in two different ways and get different answers.
So, here's a fact: an artillery shell filled with enough Sarin to kill 6,000 people was recently found in Iraq. There are a lot of opinions about whether this is meaningful, and this is where the framing effect comes in.
Here's another fact: this artillery shell can only kill 6,000 people if it is fired through the appropriate artillery piece.
Now for a little bit of semantics: the artillery shell and the artillery piece (potentially) constitute a weapon of mass destruction, but the artillery shell or the artillery piece by themselves clearly do not.
Here's the framing effect. Would the response of the media and the public have been identical in these two cases:
1) Artillery pieces are found and captured in 2003 but poison gas shells that could be fired from them are hidden until a year later, or 2) Poison gas shells are found and captured in 2003, but the artillery pieces to fire them are hidden until a year later.
Obviously, choice 1 is what actually happened. Would we be in the same situation today if choice 2 had occurred? If the answer is no, then there is a framing effect, and therefore some irrationality implicit in current discussions of the situation. It's up to you to decide which side is irrational.