If somehow there is an accounting that shows that after the 90's, when Saddam acknowledged, due to his late sons-in-law's revelations, that there were indeed WMDs on hand that were disposed of and that the Bush Admin knew of this and lied about it to deliberately lead us into war, I would not be able to vote for him again.
Note that it is accounting, not capture.
Saddam was free until April to do a lot of things within his country quite freely, including destroying the weapons themselves ahead of our invasion.
His doing that would not invalidate what we did or why we did it.
If there was in fact no reason to actually believe that there were WMDs, and Bush knew it, but still insisted on war, then he would in fact have deliberately lied.
But this requires an accounting of what we believed we knew in 1998 when US policy became regime change, vs. what some now suspect.
The critics of US policy have never been able to provide this reconciliation.
But even I, the alleged blind partisan, would not support a deliebrate conspiracy of manipulation.
An interesting question that comes to mind is this:
Since when has the left last demonstrated symmetrical, dependable ethical behavior?
Ed
Ed