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.
I agree. No matter what anyone says, I do not think that it is the UN or the USA's business to interfere with any Sovereign Nation's Military procurement programs, taken in isolation. WMD's are not, by themselves, a Justification for War (if they were, we'd bomb France.... or even Israel).
It ALWAYS was tied to the terrorist equation, OP. The media WON'T let you know that, though.
"The media WON'T let you know that, though".
This is not entirely the Media's fault, xzins.
I'm not disputing the Iraqi training of terrorists (which is Fact), nor the Threat of Sarin Gas. I'm saying the Case was poorly made.
As a Debater, I would not try to construct a Disadvantage Argument by jumping straight to the Hypothetical Impact, without firmly establishing the Link, Brink (or Threshold), and Uniqueness.
Salman Pak was the Link, Salman Pak was Unique to Hussein's Regime, and the Brink was already in place with Iraqi connections to the 1993 WTC bombing (i.e., the Brink was already in operation).
I.E., to construct a persuasive, watertight Argument -- Salman Pak should have led the Case. (besides the fact that, as 9/11 demonstrated, Salman-Pak-style terrorism has a pretty big Implicit Impact of its own -- independent of any WMD's.)
As an Argument: It should have, it could have, it was morally justifiable -- and it (largely) was not employed until After the Fact (which is too late, PR-wise).