Geez, this is starting to get into the angels-on-a-pin zone.

Davin wrote "In any case, we did NOT go to war with Iraq for the reason that Iraq was being difficult with the UN and not living up to its lawful obligations, we went to war with Iraq because it was building and stockpiling WMD that it INTENDED to pass to terrorists for use on the US. A red herring, Tom"

If what you say in your statement was true, and we had solid incontrovertible proof before the war that Saddam had WMD stockpiles, and similar proof that he intended to distribute it to terrorists, this would in fact have been the evidence of an imminent threat that you would have wanted.

Again, I cannot think of how such a thing could have been proven incontrovertibly, short of Saddam going on TV and telling us that is what he was doing.

We didn't have absolute knowledge. We had experience, educated guesses, past history, and less-than-perfect data.

What I was trying to point out is that Bush DID go on somewhat fuzzy information. The other point I was making is that it was impossible to work with anything OTHER than somewhat fuzzy information in the real world of intelligence and politics. Your standard of proof is impossible, and Bush had two choices: assume that Saddam in fact was not dangerous, and stand down (and bet on Saddam's word and the skills of the U.N.), or assume that Saddam was dangerous and invade. There was no certainty possible in either direction with the information we had seven months ago.

From the heights of idealism, one can make legitimate arguments for either choice. We already know what the results of the invasion choice are. But what could have been the results of the other choice? What if he had brought the troops home and Saddam DID have an active nuclear weapons program? And DID sell WMD to terror groups? Then what? Who takes responsibility for the results of that decision?

Remember, the hard evidence (still incomplete) we are looking at now was not available then. To anyone. Not the U.N. either. To piss on Bush for not knowing then what Kay knows now is ridiculous. To call it an immoral choice because his information didn't match what we know now is ridiculous. If you want to do something useful, criticize things that are actually changable in the real world, like our post-Saddam policies.

See the post I already referenced on Al Qaeda.