The point was that a hell of a lot of people and organizations drew the same conclusions about Saddam that Bush did.

Clinton did, in fact, launch a military attack on Iraq based on these conclusions, an attack directed specifically at facilities for WMD, although he did not overthrow Saddam. Estimated Iraqi deaths from these attacks vary. A military report is here. An Iraqi report can be found here. There were no U.S. casualties.

So, how do we put this?

"Clinton lied. Nobody important died?"

"Hundreds to thousands of Iraqis died for WMD that did not exist?"

The line of bullshit the Left has been trying to sell in recent months is that only the Bush administration was stupid enough to think Saddam was a threat, and that EVERYBODY else back then knew there were no WMDs or terror links.

Most of your second paragraph is crap. The assumption made by most nations and the U.N. was that Saddam was not cooperating, and did have something to hide that could present a danger. The only argument was whether to go to war over it, or pursue the U.N. inspection and enforcement route*. Hell, I was there, same as you.

It doesn't hurt to dredge up the evidence now and then.

"He did it too" is not an excuse for a behavior. But it's worth pointing out the rank hypocrisy when the ones who "did it too" are up on their high horse throwing shit at Bush for "doing it."

In other words, Bush's actions have to stand on their own. But people who advocated going to war--and DID go to war--to eliminate Saddam as a WMD threat, and who are now pointing an indignant finger at Bush, should probably sit down and shut the &%#@ up.

.

*Which has had a less than stellar record of detecting and removing threats so far.