Replies

Here are the first replies. I'm not even going to get into it. If they don't want to read and think, then it isn't worth my time.

The italics are from another conservative and the regular are the responses to him.

Sorry, Saddam had NO nuclear weapons program, NO WMD program and Saddam had NO connection to 9/11.

It doesn't matter if they had it or not, all that matters is if we had reason to think they did.
There was also evidence that they didn't and good reason to think they didn't. Not only that, but it is immoral and unlawful to start a war simply because someone has reason to think someone else did something.

Personally, I think we didn't need a reason to invade Iraq. He was violating the terms of the cease fire agreement.
Well, that would be fine, if 1. that was the stated reason for the invasion and 2. those in the position to make that decision were informed, and 3. they agreed. But 1. it wasn't, and 2. they weren't, and 3. they wouldn't have.

Saddam talked a lot - that much is obvious. And he needed to be kept from doing things like building nukes. But we had him pretty much under wraps as it was. There were plenty of alternatives to an invasion that would have kept Saddam from being any significant threat to the US and which would have been far less costly in lives and money.

Congress' Iraq War resolution did not stipulate any intelligence finding. It authorized the war for all the right reasons. At cannot be inferred that the information presented re WMDs and terrorist connections was the sole casus beli. There is a difference between making a foreign policy decision to finally topple a regime which has incontestably forfeited its right to exist, and the process of public disclosure.