Clinton trotted out 'proof' for bombing the Sudanese aspirin factory and for bombing the crap out of Yugoslavia and it was completely fabricated. Surely an equally untrustworthy Bush administration could do the same thing.
Bottom line, is I trust Bush's judgment on this one -- that Saddam is a threat to US security. I don't trust his judgment on some issues (e.g. immigration) but I do trust it on Iraq.
If a guy like Rumsfeld says Saddam is a threat to my security, but Saddam says no, and Burkeman1 agrees, being unimpressed with the circumstantial evidence...I don't know any of them personally, but with my ass on the line I think I'll stick with Rumsfeld!
Those who are now disagreeing with the effort would not be convinced in any case, no matter the proof. And it seems to me that circumstances like this somewhat preclude the use of evidence that would convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, as if that were even necessary outside of a normal criminal trial.
War is seldom that clean and neat. Those playing "Matlock" should realize that.
The difference is fundamental...if you don't like the domestic security programs, an election looms. Go vote. You cannot, however, vote away an exterior threat. It does not go away if you ignore it, either.
It is the height of folly to use some unsatisfactory domestic issues (CFR, for heaven's sake?) as an excuse for ignoring a threat to our nation as a whole. I'll bet that plenty of those who do so also guarantee such problems in the first place by continually tossing votes to unelectable third party gadflies, which, you may notice, has had the ultimate result of weakening the President's hand at this critical time.
As previously stated: self-centeredness on parade.