So, even though the vast majority of the world agreed that Hussein had WMD and was a threat, you, offering no evidence, choose to adopt a "I'm not convinced" stance. Even though the US Congress believed Hussein a threat and said so, you, offering no evidence, choose to side with those who have proven again and again to seek political advantage in every situation. Even though Bill Clinton offered the same assessment of the Iraqi situation when he chose to bomb, you, offering no evidence, choose to believe we are simply cowboys shooting first and asking questions later.
Pre-emption is wrong in both the individual and national case. It is wrong just because you just might be mistaken. That is why our highest law, the constitution, calls for due process.
Just pathethic. UN resolutions authorized us. US Congress resolutions authotized us.
The UN Security council specifically held back on use of force authorization till after inspectors reported. Then they refused to give that authorization. That refusal was not a French veto but a lack of a majority vote. There was NO UN authorization.
Congress authorization was based on what now appears to be a false set of facts. Indeed, without the forged documents asserting uranium purchases, it would have failed, despite all the chem and bio talk. In retrospect, it appears all to have been false (maybe fraudulent, maybe stupidity).