Declassified intelligence has shown that he did.
> it was clear at the time that he did not have them
That's laughable.
> there were U.N. inspectors on the ground
This cuts the other direction. Hans Blix said Saddam was not complying with his obligations and introducing unnecessary delays for inspectors.
The only reason WMDs were a core argument is because they were a triggering mechanism for a UN process that didn't happen anyway. It wasn't a cornerstone of getting popular support, popular support wasn't a significant obstacle, as they controlled government and won reelection anyway.
Besides, it's ridiculous to say, "there may have been great reasons for the war, but you didn't claim them in time loudly enough, so the war was unjustified."
What would that possibly matter? It's like pointing out that the motivations for entering WWII weren't to prevent the holocaust, therefore preventing the holocaust doesn't matter and WWII wasn't a just war. It's a three card monte with political ethics. Inventing an arbitrary rhetorical standard that decides actual facts about actions.
Moreover, it detracts focus from mistakes in execution, where focus is required if you want future wars not to leave a massive anarchic state in their wake.
But finally, I just keep hearing Clinton's line, "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"
There were several reasons for the war. Some got shouted more than others, so what? How does that help us now in any way deal with the current situation in Iraq?
> > oil politics ... may have played some role as well > Ya think?
With the caveat that most of the discussion of that is a conspiracy theory about the US stealing Iraqi oil, which is naive and at best simplistic. A dream of adding a stabler countervailing voice to OPEC is more likely, but even if true, still a long, long way down the list.
This goes back to why this gets flagged, though. No amount of sources, reason, or evidence appear to have any effect on the other side. Each of us thinks we're the sane one and the other is just being stubborn and irrational. There's no possibility for useful discussion here, because everyone's views appear calcified to the other side.
If nothing can be gained, it's so much unproductive gibberish then.
Politics is the mind killer:
You can't be serious. George Bush himself has admitted that there were no WMDs.
You would know this if you had actually read the comments you're responding to.
For example, you completely missed the final point of the comment you just replied to, and instead provided more evidence to prove it's true.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/081399iraq-conf...
That is a story from August of 1999. So it cannot possibly be evidence that "declassified intelligence" shows Iraq had WMDs.
I feel like I have truly entered bizarro-world here.
Here's another incident where DOD describes recovered WMDs:
http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918
Iraq was storing giant caches of sarin-tipped warheads. They also had mountains of yellow cake at Tuwaitha that was moved out of the country for neutralizing and processing.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-ha...
More WMD discoveries covered in WIRED:
https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-contin...
This press release from Stu Cohen, under "Myth #10," Stu points out what we're talking about in the original argument about WMDs.
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statemen...
"We judged that Iraq probably possessed one hundred to five hundred metric tons of CW munitions fill. One hundred metric tons would fit in a backyard swimming pool; five hundred could be hidden in a small warehouse.... When the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), led by David Kay, issued its interim report in October [2003], acknowledging that it had not found chemical or biological weapons, the inspectors had then visited only ten of the 130 major ammunition depots in Iraq; these ammunition dumps are huge, sometimes five miles by five miles on a side. Two depots alone are roughly the size of Manhattan. It is worth recalling that after Desert Storm, US forces unknowingly destroyed over 1,000 rounds of chemical-filled munitions at a facility called Al Kamissiyah."
This just illustrates that even if they hadn't found WMDs, it doesn't tell you they weren't there. Under myth #5 he describes the wide variety of sources that supported the conclusion that they were there. Under myth #9 he talks about the equivalent danger of rapid mobilization programs that are completely deniable and would not necessarily produce any recoverable material.
WMDs were found, but it would hardly matter if they weren't.
It's a firsthand account from someone who was there at the time published in a reputable news outlet.
> It was flagged because Saddam promising an interrogator he wouldn't use chemical weapons to start WWIII ... is barely relevant to anything.
WMDs were the centerpiece of the case against Saddam. All the other arguments were just gilding the lily. The war was sold primarily (in fact, almost exclusively) on the grounds that Saddam was a clear and present danger to the U.S. because he had WMDs, and the fact of the matter was that he did not. (Not only did he not have them, but it was clear at the time that he did not have them: there were U.N. inspectors on the ground in Iraq before the war, and they, obviously, had found nothing.) A first hand account from someone who was there are the time is relevant if nothing else because it provides a fuller understanding of history that could inform future decisions and allow us to avoid repeating this catastrophic mistake.
> oil politics ... may have played some role as well
Ya think?