At the risk of turning this into a political forum (which I have no desire to do whatsoever), let's start with WMDs and the fairytale that somehow Al Qaida and Saddam had this close working relationship and that Iraq was an imminent danger to the U.S. You can comment if you will, but I will leave it at these two beginning facts.
Since when do I not comment! :) Suffice it to say that one can say Bush was wrong about WMD's but he did not lie. If he did know there were none, then he was the only one in the civilized world that did. His own CIA said it was a "slam dunk". British intelligence, Israel, and other allied countries all said the same thing. Second, Bush never said then, and doesn't say now that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I don't recall anyone saying that Al Qaida was organized and in Iraq at the time. There was a report that Iraqi intelligence had met with Al Qaida, and it was clear that they had similar goals in hurting America and Israel. They would have been natural partners.
Third, the imminent danger argument was NEVER used by Bush. It was used by Democrats wishing to twist his words. In President Bush's 2003 State of the Union, his exact words were: "Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave and gathering danger.". He never said "imminent". He DID say that the nature of the war was preemptive, and we all assess the wisdom of that now.
I am as frustrated with the mistakes made in this war as anyone else, but I don't think it was brought as a result of lies by Bush. He made a judgment that Iraq was on a path to inevitably BECOME an imminent danger, so he decided to act before that happened.
No, the UN inspectors did. Various other sources were screaming but no one was paying attention because we were beating war drums too loud. Everyone was itching for a "splendid little war."
His own CIA said it was a "slam dunk"
Those CIA officials who knew better were ignored or their reports "cooked." Colin Powell presented computer-generated cartoons of "evidence" in what was probably the most humiliating moment for the US in the Security Council, because we had no other proof.
We went to war, in part, because crooks like Chalaby and the rest of the ambitious Iraqi emigres were feeding us lies and we believed them because we wanted to believe then and not the evidence.
They were used, as it appears, by the offices of VP Chaney and DefSec Rumsfeldand and his neocon cons, all of whom have either explicitly or implicitly expressed loyalty to Israel, and I just can't believe that the only person who didn't know was none other then the Chief Executive. If he was, then he is clueless (which many believe but I think it's his act because one does not get to be where he is by being clueless, or naive).
And PM Blair was in it too. The smell of cheap oil was irresistible.
British intelligence, Israel, and other allied countries all said the same thing
That's like three Stooges doing the dance together. They are all in it together.
Third, the imminent danger argument was NEVER used by Bush
But he didn't stop those claims either. The British, with Blair's blessing, launched the 48-hour nuclear weapons attack scare. Dick Chaney actually said on more than one occasion that, contrary to all evidence known then, Saddam did have WMDs. You don't think the Israelis were going to contradict him? After all, they had the most to gain form an invasion of Iraq.
One little thing everyone ignored was Saddam's threat to use Yugoslav partisan style tactics -- allowing the enemy to enter the country and then launch guerrilla-style raids until the enemy had bled and lost the will to fight.
That was ignored too. Who remembers WWII Yugoslav partisan tactics?! In other words, clues were there about non-existent WMDs and the dangers of occupation, but the stupidity that was present all along was never lacking. We put our trust in Chalaby (a convicted embezzler), and other Iraqi emigre crooks because they were singing what we wanted them to sing, even though they presented 'evidence" that contradicted all the facts on the ground.
There was no imminent danger, no WMDs, no Saddam-Al-Qaida connection, no need for preemptive strike. Iraq was completely contained economically and militarily between the two imposed no-fly zones and combed inside and out bu UN inspectors.
But, as I said, I have no desire to discuss our stupid politics, or "just war" nonsense. So, I will cease on this topic and let die-hards debate this on political forums.