But I see the situation exactly the opposite. Paraphrasing from their first paragraph, originally President Bush said we were going to war with Iraq because of their links to Al Qaeda. Then when there was no evidence for that, he said we were going to war with Iraq because they had nuclear weapons. Then when there was no evidence for that he said we were going to war with Iraq because they had had chemical and biological weapons. Then when there was no evidence for that ... .
I find it amazing how this administration has used 9/11 to manipulate public opinion and has bamboozled most of the non-right media and the Democrats to believe its agenda (or at least not oppose it). What a bunch of wimps.
There's already talk about how Colin Powell's presentation of "evidence" to the U.N. will not be definitive, in an attempt to make it appear that there is some evidence. It's kind of like what Wall Street does these days with corporate earnings; lower expectations so you can report that you beat them and your stock will go up. And yes, I know Saddam is a bad guy. But according to Amnesty International there are a dozen or so others out there who are worse. Deterrence worked against the Russians (who were at least as "evil") for 50 years; why not now? IMO, this is about oil and Israel. Someone should ask Bush if he would be willing to promise that the US, including any US citizen or business, will not make any money from Iraqi oil as a result of our invasion. I'd bet he won't accept.