Some people realize 20/20 hindsight is not the proper way to judge decisions. Decisions have to be made based on the information at hand. Those that were opposed to the war wanted a higher standard of evidence.

I am one of those who opposed the war. I made my judgement without access to hindsight. I stand by my judgement, as my position still seems sound. I am sick about this monumental blunder. I am disgusted with Americans for being so gullible. I am disgusted with the administration for using 9/11, selective use of intellegence, and misdirection to get a war they wanted. I hate the position in the diplomatic and common opinion worlds that America now occupies.

They are still pushing the imaginary link between 9/11. In this piece, for instance (hitting the theme of failing to support the war means failing to support the troops) Wolfowitz finishes with: Not long ago, a woman named Christy Ferer traveled to Iraq along with the USO. She'd lost her husband Neil Levin at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, and she wanted to say thank you to the troops in Baghdad. She wrote a wonderful piece about her trip, and in it, she wondered why our soldiers would want to see her, when they could see the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, movie stars and a model. When the soldiers heard that a trio of Sept. 11 family members were there, she found out why.
Young men and women from across America rushed to the trio, eager to touch them and talk to them. One soldier, a mother of two, told Christy she'd enlisted because of Sept. 11. Another soldier displayed the metal bracelet he wore, engraved with the name of a victim of 9/11. Others came forward with memorabilia from the World Trade Center they carried with them into Baghdad. And when it was Christy's turn to present Gen. Tommy Franks with a piece of steel recovered from the Trade Towers, she saw this great soldier's eyes well up with tears. Then, she watched as they streamed down his face on center stage before 4,000 troops. Where is the outrage?

In this instance those demanding a higher standard of evidence appear to be in a good position to crow although contrary to their claims the jury is still out. Believe me, I am not crowing.

Prior to 9/11 the higher standard of evidence was accepted by the Clinton administration and not immediately challenged by the Bush administration and we lost 3000 lives. Are you pushing the 9/11 link as one who has been deluded? Or as a willing flunky?

In short you and many others keep asking the wrong question. It's not "were we justified in attacking Iraq if they don't have weapons of mass destruction"...

I am not asking any question. Overthrowing a nation's government is analogous to a man killing a man. You don't do it lightly. If you intend to plead self-defense then you have to establish that it was reasonable for you to think you were in danger. If many of the people who are supposed to be experts in the field have told you there is no threat, then you have a weak case. That puts you in prison.

...its "are we justified in treating someone as a threat if they act like they are a threat". How many times did Iraq tell the world that it had no NBC weapons? That is the opposite of acting like a threat.

When you combine that question with Saddam's treatment of his own people and neighbors most people do not and will not see a problem with deciding to take Saddam out based on his 10 year record of obstruction and evasion of his post GW1 resonsibilities whether or not he actually had WMD... Saddam is bad. His govt. was a bad one. That puts him on a list of problem states that we do not have the right to overthrow and occupy. If you want to use deadly force you need to follow due process. If you care (as I do) that people will think you are out of control and dangerous then you ascertain in advance that they will not do so. You do it right. The cops do not assassinate Gotti and then show outrage when anyone complains later.

He is the one primarily responsible for that belief not manufactured data by British or US intelligence. Yeah, it's all Saddam's fault. He made us claim we had incontrovertable evidence.

...His comments on the UN however overlook both its past failures in similar situations and its record of failure to make Saddam live up to his obligations. If you have a problem with the UN, then the reasonable course is to fix the UN. The powerful men in the administration can't even say "UN" without becoming purple in the face. We need an exec who can handle diplomacy.