..driving most Salon readers absolutely crazy with a defense of Bush. The intelligence gathering here was always going to be a mess and there was no way to know what the actual facts would be. Bush had to make a judgment. Do you do nothing in the belief that he doesn't have WMD or do you do something because you think he does? This is how all of history works. Imperfect information from sources who have every incentive to lie. I still believe that we are safer with Saddam dead and Qaddafi (sp) scared into giving up his weapons.

Now, suppose we guess that Iran doesn't have the ability to make a nuclear weapon and then they test one. Is that scary enough for you? Is that scary enough for our allies the Israelis? How scared do you have to be to act? History is made based on these judgments.

Fire away, Salon readers.

many times will blumie keep regrgitating old news? We know Bush didn't believe the intel that said Saddam didn't have WMD. We also know that he wanted regieme change. WMD was never the only reason we went into Iraq.

Alright, I see right through your game...You want Hillary elected and so you put up this garbage about senators not knowing what these 2 CIA officers knew...that way Hillary can parade your article and say "Look! we senators were kept in the dark!"

Durbin, Obama, Pelosi , Edwards and a few others didnt need CIA offers to tell them that there were no WMD's in Iraq...they voted their conscience, Hillary voted for politics

Bush had to make a judgment.

Let's ignore for the moment that Bush's judgment in this case (and all others) was tragically wrong. Let's instead just focus on his intentions. By believing Curveball and ignoring Saddam's foreign minister, despite corroborating evidence and comments from our allies regarding the credibility or lack thereof, Bush and his cronies showed their predisposition for war, facts be damned. That is a horrible crime.

I still believe that we are safer with Saddam dead and Qaddafi (sp) scared into giving up his weapons.

Your belief does not make sense. When Saddam was in power, we had one ineffectual tinpot dictator who thought bad things about us but could never do anything. Now we've got thousands and thousands of insurgents who are pissed off that we turned their families into jelly. But you feel safer without Saddam. Good for you.

Now, suppose we guess that Iran doesn't have the ability to make a nuclear weapon and then they test one.

Why stop there? Why not include every scary-but-incredibly-unlikely scenario under the sun? Suppose we assume werewolves aren't real, and then you get attacked by one? What should we do? Cover ourselves in garlic, and keep guns with silver bullets available at all times?

Is that scary enough for you? Is that scary enough for our allies the Israelis? How scared do you have to be to act?

An honest, respectable Republican (remember those?) once said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." I strongly recommend you change your Depends and repeat those words.

...but facts they remain. Bush LIED to start a war. Thousands of people are dead and suffering because of a lie. Bush and Cheney deserve impeachment, removal from office, and imprisonment for what they have done.

Anyone with a lick of sense knew in 2002 that Bush was intent on committing the war crime of attacking Iraq. He had already tried luring Saddam into shooting down Nato planes in Feb. 2001. Saddam was cautious and knew that the Americans were going to try to get him. Whatever Bush's motivation, it was not to "protect America from weapons of mass destruction". That began as a ploy and was always a ploy. Nothing would have stopped Bush from attacking Iraq, and because is an impatient, foolish man, he kept showing his cards. There is no excuse for ever having supported the Iraq war. The case was stupid on the face of it, and carelessly made. Now they are going to do it to you again on Iran. You ambivalent types are gong to have the blood of multitudes on your hands. I feel sorry for you, you are so f---ing stupid.

How many times will blumie keep regrgitating old news? We know Bush didn't believe the intel that said Saddam didn't have WMD. We also know that he wanted regieme change.

Until he's impeached and imprisoned, of course. That's what a civilized society does with criminals like Bush. I mean, why do we have to keep hearing about Phil Spectre and the woman who died in his house? Should we just stop talking about it because it's old news?

Or should it continue to occupy the public mind until justice is done?

Take your time.

WMD was never the only reason we went into Iraq.

And as we see, it never was a reason at all, just an excuse fed to a public and congress who had the quaint notion that, without some kind of threat (and that could only be posed by WMDs), we had no business going to war. The reason why people still have a problem with the missing WMDs is because their absence completely undermines the reason we invaded in the first place, rendering this whole adventure a tragic mistake. And this has huge ramifications for what we should do about it now.

no shit, Sherlock. Everyone knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, even our dumb president. Some people insist they thought he did, but they are either disingenuous or paranoid freaks. The war, plain and simple, was retribution for 9/11, which probably was allowed to happen by our war-mongering president who needed an excuse to depose Saddam. Come'on. This is all old news.

and just think of all the mothers' children, on both sides of the ocean, who have died for this administration's greed . . . so that those fatuous bush girls could inherit . . . that is why the blood shed is happening people.

Okay, I'll bite (I'm intrigued). FDR was a Republican?