The claim was that weapons could be readied for use within 45 minutes. A quote repeated dozens of times in the build-up to war. Even if that claim was never made the case was made that they already had stockpiles they could deliver to terrorists at any time. Iraq may have been a "great and gathering threat" now but when making the case for war the word used was "immenent".

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

President Bush's State of the Union speech

Iraq was frequently described as a threat, but not imminent.

There were two versions of the CIA report to the Senate presented only days before the Authorization of Force vote.

My understanding is that the doubts about the quality of the intelligence were not presented to the administration either.

I have yet to meet anyone here that has bothered to download and read the Senate report on pre-war intelligence, so I don't know why anyone should entertain supposition from Bush-haters. If they want to make real arguements they have a body of work to look to. Instead they make fuzzy statements imply cover-ups, regardless of the fact that the Senate had the same information the Bush administration had and came to the same conclusion.

If anyone wants to point out information that was intentionally surpressed, post a page number. I'm tired of hearing supposition about something that has already been officially addressed and is a matter of public record.

Paul: I don't think it's fair to say that I don't care about the opinions of others.  I admit to pulling David's chain because he is constantly writing about how Canada is the greatest, most diverse, wonderful utopia in the universe.

I do, however, have a problem with a country that hasn't participated in this trying to tell ME why I supported something. Or someone from another country insisting why Americans did X and Y. 

Blair DID make Iraq sound like an imminent threat with arguments that missiles could be launched in 45 minutes or something to that effect.  BUSH DID NOT.  Just because UK's prime minister made the argument of imminent threat does't mean Bush did.  Bush did not see Iraq as an imminent threat.  He saw Saddam as a long term threat that we could no longer tolerate in a post-9/11 world.  The US has certainly taken on military action, even in recent history, for far LESS reasons (Panama for instance).

We are the second largest population of the top 17 countries by GDP per capita.

Haha, this is such a contrived statistic.

What a silly argument. "Canada has a high per capita GDP, and its rank is even higher if you don't count the tiny countries whose high per capita GDP ranking reveals what a meaningless statistic it is for determining how powerful a nation is."

The UK government was the first to make the 45 minute claim. Google it.

Bush went to war on the claim that Iraq was an imminent threat because they possessed and would use WMDs against us. Bush still claims Saddam was a threat because he had the capability of creating WMDs. These are specious claims. Every industrialized country in the world has the capability of creating WMDs. The fact is, the inspections were working. Saddam had destroyed his WMDs. He was no threat to the US.

Of course the war would have been justified if we had found ICBMs and if Saddam had used chemical warfare as a defense against our troops.

The world is less safe because we invaded Iraq. The Middle East is destablized. Iraq is a marketing tool for AL Qaeda. We responded exactly as Bin Laden and his cohorts wanted us to.

Bush went to war on the claim that Iraq was an imminent threat because they possessed and would use WMDs against us.

He did not say Iraq was an imminent threat. I have a quote a few posts up where Bush says it would be a mistake to wait until the threat is imminent.

Iraq is a marketing tool for AL Qaeda.

Iraq was a marketing tool for Al Qaeda long before we invaded. One of the "justifications" for bin Laden's fatwah against the US was that 500,000 Iraqis were killed due to US sanctions.

Sorry Brad,
that was suppossed to be tongue in cheek (hence the symbol) but it does read a little harsh. I know you do care about others opinions, or else you would not bother debating with them so much.

Point taken on the difference between US and UK. In the UK we had Blair making WMD the single issue (indeed other issues were denied). But we did have Bush trying to convince the rest of the world to join in, and for that WMD was also the only issue. Internally within the US other issues may have got more attention, but certainly not on a world stage.

So for 95% of the world's population WMD was the primary issue. The debate still rages as to what the US 5% population believed or were told.

Paul.

Madine,
you asked

explain why they would have supported the war if WMD stockpiles were found

To do this one must argue that WMD were indeed the decisive issue in

justifying the invasion

The important word here is Justice. Legally a country may only invade another if attacked itself or if imminent threat requires pre-emptive action. Therefore the invasion of Iraq is only legal or justified IF that imminent threat is found. Hence why for many WMD was the decisive issue. Hence why it was the single issue used by the US internationally.

Hence I can understand anyone argueing that unless WMD are found the war was wrong. If WMD are found the war was right.

Paul.

The British legal justification for war against Iraq.

I think though that when talking about the justification for the war, most people are referring to more of a moral justification ("Was it the right thing to do?") than a legal one.

Hence why for many WMD was the decisive issue.

I'm sure that there are many people who think that. However, there are people who were opposed to the war from the start when the WMD question was still up in the air. They opposed the war for other reasons, and even if there had been WMD stockpiles in Iraq, they still would have been opposed to the war. For these people, whose opinion would not be swayed even if there were WMD, it is disingenous to argue that WMD was a decisive issue.

Ah a 'moral' justification.

Unfortunately people have completely difference senses of morals, and so the question

Was it the right thing to do?

will get different answers from different people.

I disagree that those who were not swayed by WMD should not be allowed comment. Jsut because they were not convinced to support the war does not invalidate any arguements they may have about whether that was the decisive issue in the arguement. It just means that they were not swayed, not that no one tried to sway them, and WMD may indeed have been the decisive arguement put forward by others in trying to sway them.

Paul.