[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You're just engaging in the same spin the Right used after the justification for war started falling apart. He was a really bad guy, he'd used WMD in the past, he wanted to restart programs after sanctions were lowered etc...etc... all true but not what was presented to the American people.

I am engaging in the same spin used by "the Right" before the war started. The first two you cite, that "he was a really bad guy, he'd used WMD in the past were actually mentioned, in so many words, in the Iraq War Resolution rationale including multiple other reasons for the invasion in the Iraq War Resolution:

The October 2002, U.S. congress Iraq War Resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of Al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

And your third "spin,"--"he wanted to restart programs after sanctions were lowered,"--would certainly qualify "within an acceptable margin," as a substitute reason if weapons were not found. Even David Kay who conceded they were wrong about the existence of major stockpiles or about an active program to produce them said that other ISG discoveries made in the search made Iraq's aims "more dangerous" than believed before the invasion. Is the acknowledgement that he would reconstitute his WMD programs after sanctions were lifted not a "justification" for the war if THE only supposed reason was the active existence of the programs. Wouldn't maintaining the capability to restart the programs if he wasn't stopped be a reason, or would it be better to wait till he restarted his plans and developed new weapons, at a possibly more conducive time when a "war monger" no longer occupied the White House?

And, regime change, mentioned in the War Resolution, was a very definite and major reason for the war. Even Bill Clinton called for regime change in Iraq. Though he stopped short of advocating war, he thought it was critical to remove Saddam.

They claimed Saddam had active programs and was collaborating with al Qaeda. Both items have been dis-proven within an acceptable margin.

Acceptable to whom? Obviously not a unanimous acceptance or disproof. Just as it is obviously not within an acceptable margin, nor a proof, for you that the NYT article disproved the Kay and Duelfer conclusion that major stockpiles of weapons no longer existed. That they were greatly degraded from performing their intended use does not discount that Saddam did not, as required, disclose their existence. He was as guilty of that as he was of making it difficult for inspectors to do their job, and for orders to Iraqi personnel to conceal from inspectors plans for maintaining capabilities to restart WMD programs.

Could legacy munitions still be used for improvised devices? Perhaps. Could they also blow up the Mosul Dam or unleash a toxic mess by emptying a refinery into the water system. Sure...anything is possible.

The fact is, they existed. Some, maybe several, were still "viable." The spin, or "narratives," either way create, if not a fog of war, a fog of politics. Was the war "justified"? As in most cases of war, it seems to be a matter of opinion. Is there even more "justification" for a war because of the current situation with the proliferation of terrorist groups creating havoc, death, and threats to us? That also seems to be a matter of opinion. And various "narratives" are busily being spun to justify the pro and con. I'm not as confident in any of the answers as you seem to be.

But politics go on. As in the congressional "investigations" into the reasons for the Iraq war, current ones into the Benghazzi fiasco also find "no evidence" of wrong doing. It is amazing how both sides huff and puff with conjectures and proofs how the other side is culpable of really bad stuff but they eventually, behind the screen of "investigation," eventually exonerate each other, blaming system failure or underling incompetence. But the bad taste and suspicion, even outright belief, that the miscreants were really guilty remains.

Actually, they most likely were guilty of "something." And in most cases, the real or most important transgression is not acknowledged. Probably because both parties are guilty of it. The growth of government power over the rest of us and the erosion of the Constitution, for instance.