wrote in message oups.com...
"He lied. There never was "no doubt" about his claim. And he
knew it perfectly well. He (or rather, his speech writer -- guess
who that was) chose these words carefully. He could have
said "little doubt" or "virtually no doubt" or a thousand other
phrases. But he (and they) chose to lie to support his inane
policy of "preventive" invasion. "

And so you conveniently avoided the direct question. Was it a lie when
Clinton, Kerry, Albright, Biden, Liberman and a whole long list of
Democrats said exactly the same thing? Was it a lie when British,
Russian, and Israeli intelligence came to the same conclusion? Or is
it just a lie when you want to divide a country, undermine our troups,
and encourage our enemies that seek to destroy us in a time of war?

And you so conveniently trimmed my reponse to your point.

None of those other people committed our troops to go fight
and die for "bad intelligence". None of those other people
are mass murderers.

And the fact remains, it was not up to the US or anyone else to play
guessing games and come to a 100% certain conclusion what Iraq was
doing.

It is up to the President of the United States to not commit
treason by committing our armed forces under false pretense
and "bad intelligence".

We know for a fact that they had WMDs. They used them on their
own people.

"Had" and "continue to possess" are two entirely different things.
Most of the quotes you pulled from other politicians (undoubtedly
from right-wing shill websites) were made prior to 1998, when
Iraq still had a few remnants of WMD. They destroyed the last
of them in 1998, which is exactly what they told both the UN and
the U.S. government.

They launched them at Israel and they used them against
Iran. The UN spent over a decade playing games and trying to destroy
or account for them all. It was up to Iraq to fully comply with
inspections, which they never did, right up till the end.

To the contrary, there's not been a single shred of evidence Iraq
lied about their WMD capability, or rather their lack of it. The
simple fact is, Bush couldn't allow UN inspections to be
completed, because they would have shown no evidence of
WMD, which then would have destroyed any justification for
an invasion.

And of course, had President Bush done nothing, if a WMD was someday
used against the US, killing 1,000 people, jerks like you would be the
first to call for Bush's impeachment because it was all President
Bush's fault, because everyone (read that endless list of names) all
believed he had WMD's, yet Bush did nothing. Nice monday morning
quarterbacking job!

Woulda coulda mighta, it's the same braindead mentality as
"preventive invasion". Maybe I'll come over to your house and
put a bullet through your head, not because you're threatening
me, but just because you might, maybe, someday pose a threat.
Just brilliant.