"Its relevance to the issue of whether Bush was correct to declare him in violation of relevant UN resolutions, is unclear however. "
I think I made clear, the relevance is political. I guess I'm telling you what I believe (in my OPINION) the reaction of the average swing voter will be (or the average citizen of our supposed allies), to the extent he or she is paying attention. Convincing you and me that invading Iraq was even more of a a necessity that we already thought it was is a useless endeavor. He had us at "hello." In other words, in my OPINION, trumping these munitions only appeals to the already converted. And, yes, I am a mindreader.
Anyway, sorry if I upset anybody here. I'm not trying to flick anybody's ear, I just think they should have sat on this until they had something more to show - all at once.
As an aside, given how little of that country we REALLY control, in the true sense of the word, I suspect there is a lot more still there.
I hope the truth doesn't come out until after the Dems have chosen a Presidential nominee. Let them paint themselves into the mother of all corners.
But that's not even what we're talking about. You had made a claim regarding whether the voters/the Congress? would have approved of the invasion (i.e., in 2003), under such-and-such circumstances. (If the mythical List-of-WMDs consisted of these 500+ shells, I suppose.) My only point was, you don't know what the voters/Congress "would have" approved or wouldn't have. It's a counterfactual and you presume to know the mind of voters/Congress (in 2003).
I just get irritated being told what "would have been enough for war" or what "wouldn't have" by people who have no objective basis whatsoever for making such a claim. The fact-set was what it was, and the invasion was approved. Yes, it's possible that with a fact-set informed by later events, the invasion would not have been approved, but don't sit there and tell me you know what would have been "enough" and what wouldn't have. You don't, that's all I'm saying.
In other words, in my OPINION, trumping these munitions only appeals to the already converted.
Hmm. Speaking for myself, I think we're at cross purposes, you and I. Who's trying to "appeal" to anyone? Certainly not me. (Far as I'm concerned, that's a pointless exercise; the invasion happened, it's over, we can't un-invade, so why re-argue it?)
But what is worth arguing is the slander that "Bush lied". In the face of that, I am simply drawing objective, logical conclusion from these published facts. That conclusion is simply: Bush was correct to charge Saddam with being in violation of UN resolutions. He didn't "lie". That's a fact. Whether or not I "convert" or "appeal" to anyone by pointing out that fact, is neither here nor there. Obviously I would prefer to convert more rather than less, but nevertheless facts are facts: Bush didn't lie. That's why this find is relevant, and that's why I argue against those who poo-poo it.
I just think they should have sat on this until they had something more to show - all at once.
Perhaps. Personally, I think they don't really even know their heads from their a**es when it comes to how to handle PR :) But PR & political/emotional "public opinion" is not what I've been talking about, I hope you now understand. Public opinion can be swayed or not, but either way: these finds vindicate Bush's claims before the UN. PERIOD.