> even if the chemical weapons found were not as massive as you expected
'Even if the promises were only comparable to the reality by exaggerating by many orders of magnitude'
> there is still enough evidence there to believe that the invasion was undertaken in good faith.
No there's not. Did you miss all the research into how Cheney's people spun the evidence and used unreliable defectors to make up a narrative and bully dissenters? Also, is this really what you're reduced to arguing: 'yes, maybe they were completely wrong and I'm desperately equivocating on the term 'WMD' - but at least Bush invaded in good faith!'?
You seem to think that intelligence gathered in a foreign repressive country can be taken as "promises". This is deeply naive.
> No there's not.
Yes there is. Even if what you claim about Cheney is true, how is he supposed to have convinced Clinton of the threat? And what about all the other nations that believed in it?
I am arguing that there was enough evidence of WMDs that several other people, other than Bush, believed they were there.
You seem to argue that all intelligence has to be 100% perfect, which shows a flawed understanding of reality. Even so, the Iraqi people were demonstrably better off (until the premature withdrawal) after the invasion and a vile dictator who gassed kurds (whilst not having WMDs apparently) and killed at random (certainly his children did) was removed. It was a net-win for the world.
> You seem to think that intelligence gathered in a foreign repressive country can be taken as "promises". This is deeply naive.
When you have put your credibility on the line, making certain claims, justifying enormous expenditures with open-ended commitments - well, choose a word you please if you don't like 'promises'.
> Yes there is. Even if what you claim about Cheney is true, how is he supposed to have convinced Clinton of the threat? And what about all the other nations that believed in it?
The other nations which had to be bullied into it or just stayed out of the 'coalition of the willing'?
> Even so, the Iraqi people were demonstrably better off (until the premature withdrawal) after the invasion and a vile dictator who gassed kurds (whilst not having WMDs apparently) and killed at random (certainly his children did) was removed.
Ah yes, it's all good until it isn't. The WMDs were there, and so it was justified! (Unless they weren't.) The invasion was a good thing! (Until it wasn't.) It was worth it! (Until we tote up the million of refugees, the hundreds of thousand of excess deaths, the trillions spent and to be spent.) Some other leaders made the same mistake! (Unless they didn't make the same mistake). It was a net-win for the world! (Well, unless we look at all the embarrassing bits.)
Sad and pitiable. You can't back up your initial claims about WMDs except in the most desperate and misleading way possible, so you immediately spin to other issues like saying some other people agreed with Bush or his intentions were good or maybe some selected post-invasion period was an improvement. I'm not fooled.
'Even if the promises were only comparable to the reality by exaggerating by many orders of magnitude'
> there is still enough evidence there to believe that the invasion was undertaken in good faith.
No there's not. Did you miss all the research into how Cheney's people spun the evidence and used unreliable defectors to make up a narrative and bully dissenters? Also, is this really what you're reduced to arguing: 'yes, maybe they were completely wrong and I'm desperately equivocating on the term 'WMD' - but at least Bush invaded in good faith!'?