ok, so it's becoming possible that iraq didn't actually have WMD at the start of the iraq war. (and yes, kay faults the intelligence community, NOT the bush administration).
however, my question is: if iraq did not have WMD what does that do for our decision to go to war?
we declared a pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation. (yes, saddam was a horrible leader and the iraqi people are better off without him.) still, we didn't go to war for the purpose of liberating the iraqis. we went to war for our national security, which, in and of itself is a valid reason.
but, how much was our national security actually at risk?
honestly, if we had said, prior to war, that saddam didn't have the current ability to attack us, and that he has not made any direct threats against us, however, he has the capability to produce WMD in the near future and he's a thug to his own people, is that a valid reason for war?
personally, i'm extremely wary of pre-emptive wars. but, i believe the only proper rationale for pre-emptive strikes is imminence.
i'm not looking to call bush a liar, criminal, evil man, etc. but i do think that i have yet to see evidence that decision to go to war was absolutely necessary at that point in time.