How would I know?How do you know?:confused: Why didn't they point us to the WMD that didn't exist? I'm not following you.Really? Even though I said the opposite in post #10?

So you don't know why but you think we had a better picture of the WMD than we were led to believe?

Once we went in, it was all in the open. Before we went it, we could only speculate

OK. Discounting Creation and Destruction, what happened to all the stuff that went into Iraq? Everybody in the world knows what went in. What we don't know is what happened to it.

You mentioned you had affirmative evidence of Bush's deception. To which, I am stating that until we have a trial, it is not conclusive even though your evidence points one way or the other. If the evidence is so strong, why haven't politicians capitalized on it? Their sense or honor to do the right thing?

That's my suspicion. I don't think Cheney, et al., could get so many people to go along with an optional invasion unless they were confident that our troops would not be gassed with horrible chemical or biological agents. I also don't think we've seen any proof that the intelligence was bad.Not true. For one thing, you are assuming that the classified information that we haven't seen said that Saddam had WMD. That's a questionable assumption, if you ask me. More important, though, we didn't have to speculate about anything. We should have inspected, not speculated.True.We've been through that so many times, I think we should just agree to disagree.

But if our troops were gassed, we do have NBC protection. Besides, he'd be able to say "Look! I told you so." After that, he'd be able to write any blank check he wants since he'd be a hero.

Sure. Hussien didn't let us do it without all the shell games. Look where it got us. All the stuff is now disappeared. We should have gone in sooner. By the time our inspections are completed, the data would have been meaningless. Come to think of it, it is meaningless. What you are suggesting is what lawmakers have been doing. People are breaking a law? More laws. We have gone that inspection route. He was playing games left and right. Until you stop the games, what can you discover? He backs down and behaves for a while and we get back to our old games again. That is the cycle.

The events of late 2002 and early 2003 don't back you up on this.

True. However, what does his history since 1990 say?