>>That was completely and utterly a senior US political position that demanded non existeant evidence to support a bizarro "known unknowns" claim

Asking people to "Prove a negative" is such a logical stupidity that is hard to understand how often people get into this.

Imagine you ordering something online on Amazon. And not getting it delivered. And then when you complain to Amazon about this, they asking you to provide a proof that it was not delivered and you don't have it.

How does somebody prove they don't have something? How do they get punished for not showing the absence of something they don't have?

This is a declassified section from the National Intelligence Estimate 2002, which was used as one of the primary justifications for the invasion:

-------------------------- Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction

       We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass 
     destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and 
     restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as 
     well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if 
     left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during 
     this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these 
     Key Judgments.)
       We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD 
     efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception 
     efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate 
     the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. 
     We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's 
     WJMD programs.
       Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its 
     chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and 
     invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of 
     most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons 
     program.

https://irp.fas.org/congress/2003_cr/h072103.html --------------------------

Here is reporting from WaPo and NYTimes on what you're saying you saw as Colin's "dog and pony show."

Washington Post - "Irrefutable" : https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i...

NYTimes - "Irrefutable and Undeniable" : https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-u...

In the midst of war, if you dared to call such thing a "dog and pony show" you'd be called a Saddam shill. War propaganda is a hell of drug, and we often only realize what's happening long after its over. And then we rewrite history in some sort of cognitive dissonance, failing to learn from the past.

As OP said, no one with a clue believed it. Hence the demonstrations. Big demonstrations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_Wa...

> According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.

> In the United States, even though pro-war demonstrators have been quoted as referring to anti-war protests as a "vocal minority", Gallup Polls updated September 14, 2007 state, "Since the summer of 2005, opponents of the war have tended to outnumber supporters. A majority of Americans believe the war was a mistake."

Whether intentionally or not, you're giving results of polls years after the invasion. Wars look very different after the fact. In the midst of the war you're surrounded by endless lies, misrepresentations, and propaganda. And most people simply follow along. After all, who wants to be called a Saddam shill?

Wiki has a series of poll results on public opinion of Iraq during after the war. [1] In May 2003, 79% of Americans thought the war was justified, regardless of whether or not WMD existed. And by the time the war had kicked off 90% of Americans believed it "at least somewhat likely" that WMD would be found.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_S...

Well, that's Central North Americans for you - still reeling after the 9-11 attacks and looking hard for revenge, however unjustified, and thus easily manipulated by politicians and the press.

In the UK and AU, the two principal partners of the "coalition of the willing", few in the public felt the situation justified and the bulk of those with exposure to global policy, military intell, travel abroad etc. definitely felt it was a bogus war.

Tony Blair was all too aware the supporting intelligence was thin and inadequate at the time - which came out in followup Royal Commissions(?) (they had a big UK inquiry into the matter), and John Howard (AU) was happy to play along despite a lack of backing from ASIO et al on the intel as it was a treaty obligation for AU and not pushing back gave leverage for other US-AU deals.

Altogether it was much less a coalition of the willing than it was a tagging along of the bribed.