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.
If you're point is that I don't really "know" anything with respect to how people would have reacted, I suppose that's true. But in a way, it's moot. If we had known this was all we were going to find, I don't think we would have made that case in the first place. We would not have allowed the issues at the UN and in the press to be framed so heavily in terms of WMD. Standing up and saying "We know that Saddam has 500+ pre-1991 shells scattered around the country that he hasn't located and accounted for" wouldn't have sounded very forceful. I think we'd still be there, but I think we would have made a different case. Again, just my opinion. But, just to show you where I'm coming from, I think we PROBABLY would have attacked Iraq even if Clinton was still president on 9-11. That's how crazy I am.
"Who's trying to "appeal" to anyone? "
The politicians who have been most vocally publicizing this in an election year. I wasn't speaking to your actions, or anybody else on this forum. My point from the get-go (perhaps inartfully stated) is that I don't think it's likely to redound to their benefit in the way they hope.
But your point is taken about the "Bush lied" issue. To the extent that this helps dispel that particular myth, then I suppose it's useful, but I don't think it will convince anybody who actually believes he lied.