[Cacophonous]

My point is, the Bush administration used the existince of WMD as justification for going to war, even had his Secretary of State give an address to Congress citing the evidence. For this reason, and based on this evidence, he committed American troops.

If he now says he was waiting until he had rock-solid evidence (checking, re-checking and checking again) until he released his evidence, you all KNOW that whatever Dem du jour is in first place in the Democrat party, assisted by all the mainstream media, will ask why he committed American troops without rock-solid evidence.

So while it may be easier to advise those questioners to get their heads out of their asses, and while it may get giggles from fraternity boys and high school sophomores, it doesn't answer the question.

[Pukin Dog]

My point is, the Bush administration used the existince of WMD as justification for going to war

So what?

Who in their right mind is going to suggest that we would be better off with Saddam still in charge over there? Bush can say that anyone making that argument is in favor of mass graves, oil money spent on weapons instead of food, and threats against Isreal and other neighboring countries.

Fine, bring that on. I can see Bush's knees quivering over that, for sure.

[Search4Truth]

Your arguement presumes Americans to be stupid. The only response to such a condecending opinion is scorn.

[Prodigal Son]

the Bush administration used the existince of WMD as justification for going to war,

Well, he used it as one justification to enter Iraq. Not the only one.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The justification for going to war, whether WMDs turn up or not, hurts Bush to an extent, because there just wasn't an unmistakable casus belli. The glow of winning, held down by gloomsayers at NY Times and Network TV, and by the nastiness in Iraq itself, is fast wearing off.

But I don't think the justification issue is a killer poison: it is a poison of too much complex thinking at a surface level. The antidote is simple thinking at a deep level. Saddam with his regime were dangerous.

You may say (rightly) he could not have harmed us militarily and he was (rightly) too afraid of the Islamic terrorists to league with them. All that wealth and all that absolute power over a technologically sophisticated system means he had the capability, and certainly the will, to do something very harmful.

His enemies won't complain directly of unnecessarily putting our troops in harm's way. That is the criticism of the antiwar right, a position I respect though disagree with in this instance. No, Democrats will simply play the war is inherently bad card. Bush wanted the war and didn't give peace every possible chance.

It is a position that doesn't resonate.

[foreverfree]

the Bush administration used the existince of WMD as justification for going to war, even had his Secretary of State give an address to Congress citing the evidence.

I thought Powell gave that address to the UN Security Council.

foreverfree