Replies

WMDs were never the sole reason - they got hyped by the press and others, but they were not the only reason.

Perhaps by people like the President? Note in his SOTU address he pointed out the atrocities going on in Iraq on the Iraqi people, however the only reason for war given was if Hussein did not disarm. Or do you doubt the President?

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.-- President Bush 1/28/03

Note he does not say the Armed For will go to free the Iraqi people, nor does he say to establish a democracy in Iraq, nor does he say to occupy territory in the Middle East to be a 'stabilizing' force. What he does say the reason for going is to disarm Hussein. So unless a massive amount of WMDs are found we have a problem. Well not we necessarily, I know what I believe. But are you supposed to believe this statement from the President of these United States? Or the National Review?

Now its a SUBSTANTIVE amount, is it? How much is a SUBSTANTIVE amount. Let me guess.

Any amount found is not SUBSTANTIVE. There will always be a higher bar to hurdle, won't there?

Saddam sure gave no indication he had disarmed.

Are you seriously asking me to believe he disarmed?

Explain away the mobile labs we found. Explain away the nuclear material. Explain away the fact that Iraqi troops equipped with chemical warfare suits and injectors loaded with drugs to counter the effects of chemical weapons. Explain why Saddam did not come out and say he disarmed when he KNEW that doing so would keep him in power.

There was every reaosn to believe he had the things - at worst, the Administration erred by assuming the worst, and after 9/11, no reasonable person can blame them for that sort of mistake.

But I guess you have to keep that neo-con/PNAC boogeyman out there so you don't have to admit you're wrong.

Or do you doubt the President? "We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm,"

No I don't doubt the President. Saddam didn't "fully disarm", and we went to war.

He didn't "fully disarm" because - just as one example - Blix found a drone (banned by the UN resolution) which wasn't accounted for in Iraq's report (required by the UN resolution).

What he does say the reason for going is to disarm Hussein. So unless a massive amount of WMDs are found we have a problem.

Says who? Saddam didn't "disarm", and we went. What's the problem?