"And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we are acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future."
From these words, he goes on to draw this conclusion (emphasis added, again):
[...] it is interesting to note that even the Clinton Administration claimed that Iraq had WMDs [...]
Now, when someone can't properly distinguish between the past tense, the present tense and the future tense, are we supposed to trust his self-righteous pronouncements on US presidents past and present?
(Wait. Why's fejj reading Slashdot?)
Update: fejj concedes his "wording was wrong there". Would that he would apply the same charitable interpretation to the Slashdot poster's words! But no; he had to go on a lengthy diatribe over what it means for "Bush" to have "lied", to conclude -- of course -- that the schmuck was guilty of evil evil evil anti-Bush bias.
But anyway, consider these. Hans Blix's inspection in Iraq in 2003 was met with unprecedented cooperation, and indeed he wrote that
Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt.
Blix asked for a few more months to resolve the outstanding WMD issues. Did Bush listen? So, how justified was Bush's invasion of Iraq? And what's the whole idea of going into a war without a coherent post-war plan?
There is/was only one way to find out for sure if Iraq had WMDs - invade (as you say, there have been, to my knowledge, no found WMDs of nuclear nature inside the boarders of Iraq, that we know of - but that doesn't mean they don't exist, hidden somewhere; similarly it doesn't mean that they do. But that was my previous point).
Wow, great. Notice that you can use this argument as a basis to invade any country whatsoever -- just replace the word "Iraq" with something else. Who needs intelligence operations when all you need is to sit in a room and engage in such philosophical wankery?
And fejj goes on to say,
Saddam was unstable - a threat to the people of Iraq and his neighbors and had been for decades, it was time this threat was eliminated for the safety of millions.
Is Iraq really safer than before? No, according to Burnham et al. Well, obviously war supporters don't like this conclusion, so they've taken to criticizing Burnham et al.'s work using the "let's hurl feces at them and totally refuse to learn the actual science behind their work w00t w00t w00t!!!!!11111111" methodology.
nutella: At least I can say I didn't start this whole thing. And of course, Michael Moore is fat.
Update #3: fejj, are you really that obtuse? Your above thesis on WMD is unfalsifiable -- it's constructed in such a way that it admits no possibility of contrary evidence, because any empirical observation can be made to "fit" with it. In brief, it's a silly piece of sophistry that doesn't merit discussion.
Update #4: fejj says,
So, despite a higher mortality rate, the Iraqi people seem to prefer life post-Saddam as compared to under Saddam.
Blatant moving of goalposts. You said that invading Iraq was for the "safety of millions". Burnham et al.'s Lancet report says Iraq wasn't safer than before. The survey you cite doesn't even address this question -- it talks about a whole bunch of other stuff, and the closest it gets to the safety issue is saying "85 per cent feel safer with CPA in place", which is a totally vague assertion. ("Feel" safer? With the CPA in place, in contrast to... what? A total power vacuum, maybe?)
Iraq isn't safer than before. Get over it.
I agree that the claim that Iraq had WMDs is unfalsifiable [...]
...and, in case you don't already know, this makes your argument as rational as other unfalsifiables -- conspiracy theories, Creation Science, postmodernist gobbledygook, and so on. If a theory can "fit" whatever reality is presented to it, then it means the theory says nothing about reality. Is this so difficult to see?
I find it hillarious that the only argument against what I've posted comes down to:
"No really, Bush is a Bad Man because I say so."
How about "no really, invading Iraq was good because I say so"? Do you have no substantive points which actually address other people's arguments? I agree with zanee, you're not trying to engage in rational discussion.