"In order to believe that Pres Bush and the rest of the US govt lied about the belief that the Iraqi govt had WMD..."
I didn't say that Bush lied. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. I suspect that he was given slanted intelligence from his courtiers who wanted the invasion to occur regardless of the presence of WMDs in Iraq.
"In the end, even if it turns out that WMD did not exist,that does not mean that the president was not acting on the best available information in good faith"
As stated above, I believe that it is possible that the pres was acting on the advice that he was given. I'm afraid that you may not appreciate the extent to which "face time" with the president is a politicized process. Tenet's CIA was overtly pressured by various elements in the administration to alter its intel reports to the president. With minimal searching, if you so desire, I could pass along a couple of interesting articles making this claim.
But still, no matter how you wish to slice it, two facts remain:
1) We were told that Iraq was awash in tons of toxins and gases that could be used against us at any time. None have shown up anywhere in Iraq after nearly 2 months of searching. (and, by the way, the Iraqi scientists are mostly saying under interrogation that Iraq destroyed its WMD in the 90s. As to why Saddam then did what he did...how the heck should I know?)
2) We were told that there were extensive contacts between the Iraqi govt and Osama's terrorist organization. Again, this has turned out to be bogus.
Aren't you just a teensie bit curious about these facts?
Again, you don't answer my point. 1) every other western government conceded that they believed Iraq had WMD - they simply did not agree with our method of dealing with it. Were the same conspirators at work in those governments and those government's intelligence agencies? 2) even the U.S. Democrats conceded that Iraq had WMD - are they also involved in the conspiracy? 3) the UN believed according to reports and statements from 1998, that Iraq had WMD. Was the UN also involved in the conspiracy?
As saddam apparently wanted us to believe he had WMDs, and even you seem to be admitting that he did at some time in the recent past have them, is it not reasonable for our intelligence to believe he still had them? At best, you are arguing for an intelligence failure, not some kind of conspiracy.
2) We were told that there were extensive contacts between the Iraqi govt and Osama's terrorist organization. Again, this has turned out to be bogus.
Please cite me where the U.S. gov't stated there were "extensive contacts between the Iraqi govt and Osama's terrorist org." I don't believe that is the case. In fact, I believe the administration was pretty careful not to state this. However, direct links to Al Queda have in fact been found - an Al Queda "executive" was living in Iraq, a top Iraqi official met w/ Al Queda as recently as 2000.
In short, your "facts" are the only thing that is bogus. If, in fact, WMD are never found, which I suspect won't be the case, but believe we need to wait until all the sites are inspected, then I will want questions answered regarding what would be a large intelligence failure, not a conspiracy. However, intelligence is at best an art, not a science. Intelligence will never be perfect, and we can't expect it to be.
I'm sure you can point me to many interesting articles regarding the "truth" about the grand conspiracy. And, I'm sure those articles will contain as much fact and reason as your above posts. And, of course a President's time is hard to come by and is rationed out. How could it possibly work otherwise? Anyone who wants can just walk in?
Perhaps we must define "extensive" here, but the documents that the Daily Telegraph uncovered in Baghdad suggested more than just an arms-length relationship.
There's no question that Saddam was one of the world's premier state supporters of terror groups. What we must remember, however, is that Iran and Syria have even more repulsive records.
There is a lot of work remaining to be done.