We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
- they aren't new - they didn't find any nukes - that's old news (it is?) - the timing of the declassification is suspicious - that still wasn't a reason to invade - Saddam wasn't such a bad guy - it doesn't count, because it doesn't fit the narrative - Bush never really made WMDs his main excuse anyway - it's really all about oilHalliburtonimperialismBush's stupiditythe neocon conspiracythe Israel lobbygetting elected whatever.
...and so it goes on. The US is always wrong. Oh, and there are no terrorists in Iraq.
Actually we didn't find any chemical WsMD. We found hundreds of old, useless shells with degraded and inert chemical remnants; they cannot even be classified as 'weapons'. Hundreds of 'throwing objects' would be more fitting.
- they aren't new
They're not. By all accounts they're at least as old as the first Gulf War, and in some cases predate it.
- they didn't find any nukes
No, we haven't, despite the Bush Administration's insistence that we would.
- that's old news (it is?)
Old is subjective. If you consider three years ago old, then yes it is.
- the timing of the declassification is suspicious
Santorum was down 18 points, he needed a desperation ploy.
- that still wasn't a reason to invade
The Defense Department itself agrees with that statement, and says as much in your linked article. ""This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the [DoD] official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
- Saddam wasn't such a bad guy
Specious strawman argument which has nothing to do with this article.
- it doesn't count, because it doesn't fit the narrative
If by narrative you mean Colin Powel's assertions to the UN Security Council that Iraq posed an imminent and immediate threat, then these throwing objects (weapons) do not.
- Bush never really made WMDs his main excuse anyway
I believe that's your Republican talking point, not a counter to this article. It's hard to tell what motivated the Bush Admin when their casus belli changes every other week.
- it's really all about...whatever.
I think you left out cronyism, military industrial complex, salvaging the petro dollar, and Bush's sociopathic psyche.
The blame here is not on the US, but those that deliberately deceive the public with false propaganda. That includes this administration. It is with them the fault lies, not the country as a whole.
Don't forget to add: We planted them. That is what the left was prepared to say once we took over the country. That is why they immediately started saying there were no WMD so shortly after Saddam fell.
If you can't succinctly summarize the grievances which drove you into an act of aggression against another country (particularly a full-scale invasion of the country itself with the goal of complete conquest) then you will have a hard time indeed in convincing anyone that the conflict is either just or necessary.
At the same time, saying that Bush lied about the WMDs does not give us any clues into what the left thinks actually motivated Bush and co. into war, and what guides their foreign policy more broadly speaking. Until you engage in a serious discussion of THAT question, rather than making disgruntled utterances about oil and Halliburton, your position will seem equally weak and groundless.