Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
Those statements show me nothing I didn't know already. Both republicans and democrats lead us into the war in Iraq. I always knew that. Hillary Clinton voted for the war, and that fact has never escaped me for a long time.

The fact that people said or believed there were WMD and made those statements prior to the war, are meaningless since they made those statements while not promoting the Bush Doctrine or the war.
...so they later changed their minds when it became politically advantageous to do so? Shocking.

Let's remember how the debate went prior to invading. There was the glaring fact that other countries outright had WMDs, while others were intent on making them... North Korea and Iran. Why invade Iraq on the suspicion of WMDs when we knew for a fact that Iran was enriching uranium all the way back then?
North Korea in 2003 hadn't detonated a nuclear weapon - that occurred in the second term of the Bush Presidency largely for the same reason that the Iranians spun their program back up; because the US President was seen as incapable of taking steps to stop them.

Look at Iran today. What if we invaded them instead and nipped the problem in the butt?
It would have been a much bigger mess and you would be even more furious about that than the anti-war folks were about Iraq.

And then there was a second debate point, so what if Iraq did have WMDs? Is that even a valid reason to strike them, and if so, when should the USA stop waging a war on nations with WMDs? Would Iran be next, would North Korea be next? When would America stop?
Well, if by "When would America stop" you mean "securing her interests", then the answer is "never". We're still doing it today (though not very well in some areas).

Iraq was a state sponsor of terror with a history of launching WMD's against his own people and aggressive wars against his neighbors. In the post-9/11 world, having those three factors cojoined was intolerable.

[quote]If they had WMDs, big freaking deal, we don't police the world and start invading countries for having the same weapons we have.

The Bush Admin didn't even have enough evidence that Iraq was a high level threat, let alone more threatening than North Korea was at that time.
On the contrary, the Bush administration had loads of evidence of both of those. That is why people who had every political incentive to ferret out falsehood in the Bush Administrations' claims (ie: Democrats), but who had access to the same evidence all came out and made the same claims.

North Korea was openly making nuclear weapons in front of the world, and talking aggressively to America. That was scary.
Meh. Sort of. It was scarier when they started exporting the technology to Syria (and by proxy Iran). However, they weren't doing that in 2003, as the NKorean nuclear test didn't come until 2006.

The war wasn't internationally accepted, despite the argument of WMDs.
On the contrary, the coalition that went into Iraq in 2003 was bigger than the coalition that had gone into Kuwait in 1991. People confused "Germany and France" with "international acceptance".

Combined that with the fact that people actually believed WMDs were possible is a moot point to me. I sided with Ron Paul and others like him. So what if they have WMDs or they possibly have them, it's not just cause to preemptively strike them and wage an aggressive, international campaign.
On the contrary, just as a felon purchasing an automatic weapon and a few tons of low-grade explosive is good reason for a police raid here in the States, someone like Saddam pursuing WMD is good reason for intervention abroad.

So what about your open mindedness? Can you accept people like myself thought the WMDs were moot, because regardless if they existed
I can understand that. I take comfort in the fact that at the time you were a small minority, and worry that more people may be coming to that irresponsible conclusion as a way of avoiding trouble in the short term (and creating more of it in the long term). Iran getting nukes, for example, would not be moot. It would be (in the words of the VP) "a big flippin deal".

or not doesn't negate the fact that we don't support the Bush Doctrine?
I'm not sure what you mean by "the Bush Doctrine". Broadly, the Bush Doctrine was the notion that (as much as we were able) we should make the improvement of human liberty abroad a key component of our foreign policy. You seem to think it has something to do with WMD's.

Simply having WMDs doesn't mean you should be invaded and destroyed by American forces. That's not the way our foreign policy worked before the Bush Admin, and that's not the way it continued to work under his Admin.
It is never the way it worked under his administration. Britain, our closest ally, had WMD's. If, however, you are a psychotic abusive tyrant with a history of WMD employment, connections to terrorism, and attacks on your neighbors, then yes, you shouldn't have access to the worlds' most terrifying weapons.

It just wasn't economically feasible and it was a disaster.
It was mishandled from post invasion through 2006/2007, at which point we began to fight a proper counterinsurgency, and then succeeded, only to have the effort sort of prematurely cut off in 2011, with the result that the country has since deteriorated. It was, however, at all times economically feasible.