Before we had left, we documented a large amount of distruction. There was likeihood that some were left over, but again, that was the claim. When we got to the intel, Bush's people ahd to reach beyond what we had. They used doubted intel to do that. They reach in and pulled out al Libi, a person who was tortured and told us what the CIA doubted he could even know. In made it into Bush argument for war. We used Curveball, who I linked was doubted. We also used Chalibi and his heros in error, someone who betrayed us once before. Remove this intel, and we had nothing.
Bush spoke as if we had the goods. He ignored doubts, from the tubes to moble labs to links to al Qaeda. He started with the answer, and tried to produce something to match his claim. He failed, so he just went with the doubt stuff.
We needed not what people thought, but what evidence they had. Despite what Chirc said he thought, he concluded we did not have the evidence to support such thinking. Shouldn't evidence be the critieria?