Yes, he did. I will never bear False Witness against our President by saying otherwise.
What I will say, is that Anti-Terrorism SHOULD have been the center-piece of the Case for War (and I am not "Monday Morning Quarterbacking, I said so well before the bombs started dropping)... not WMD's.
I read the stuff you posted on Sarin Gas and "Magnitude of Threat factored into Likelihood of Deployment = Total Threat Assessment", and sure it makes a cold sort of mathematical sense.
But that said, I still think a better Case woulda been made by saying: "Salman Pak, 30 miles south of Baghdad. Operational terrorist training camp. Mocked-up Boeing Airliner, Five-Man Teams, training in the use of Boxcutters as Hijack Weapons... what more do we need to say?"
as always, jmho
One mistake made by the President on the price of gasoline at the pump means that gas price goes up. Not so bad, and probably a frequent occurence.
One mistake made by the President on WMDs falling into the hands of suicidal terrorists means that an entire crowd at the Rose Bowl might die.
Not very likely, but SO catastrophic that it becomes a CRITICALLY HIGH RISK.
Did you see the connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda?
I agree with you that THAT is the issue. HOWEVER, if you check back through ALL of the President's statements you will discover a common thread. The WMDs were important ONLY because of their being placed in the hands of terrorists.
That Saddam had WMDs was not the problem in isolation. It ALWAYS was tied to the terrorist equation, OP. The media WON'T let you know that, though.
But I just did.
That was considered and rejected. In retrospect it was a tactical political error. You might recall that everyone thought Saddam had chemical weapons and would use them against us in the war.
Unfortunately we may not find a stockpile before the election. Unless we do, in which case it's too bad for the democrats, particularly if they're in another country.