>>>There's a flaw there.. There were nations that stated at the time of the war that they thought Iraq had WMDs, but didn't join the attack.
>
>You said European nations before, now just nations? The UK I suppose is European. Blair himself says the aftermath made UK politicians reluctant to intervene in Syria and the current incumbent says the lesson is to avoid "ill-judged and reckless rush to war." OK, who else?
>
>>>Look, I won't defend the intelligence on WMDs. Either there were none, or very little.
>
>Nope. There was plenty of intelligence. But it didn't match what the hawks wanted.
>
>>>But there were other justifications.
>
>Not at the time.
>
>>>And by the way, you posted in early 2007 that you acknowledged Hussein got what he deserved
>
>Really? You'll have no problem providing a citation, then.

It was not the intelligence on WMD that was flawed, it was a political decision, and a despicable one, that nobody should be defending.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.


Read that again, and tell me how is that not a joke, and do not get me started with Colin Powell's UN "presentation"...


[Update]Sorry John, I meant to reply to Kevin, not you[/Update]