|I think we're talking about two different things. You're into the technical partisan infighting. I couldn't care less about that. I'm interested in the rationale for the war.|
They are all related - the partisan stances spring from the different world-view that the left and the right have held since 9/11. And, imo, the left's unwillingness to face the realities of the situation because there are no answers for it in their playbook. You may not like the neocon answer, but they had one ready. The liberals were caught completely on the hop; the paleocons and the realists too for that matter.
You can suppose all you like the neocons read too much into the evidence because of their subconscious views or whatever, but you won't persuade me until you find some evidence. And no, just saying 'they were wrong in the event' is not evidence because policy decisions cannot be made in hindsight.
Saddams track record was of development and use of WMDs of all kinds, and of persistent attempts to evade the UN sanctions and keep developing them. Whenever the US was caught by surprise by Saddam before 2003, it was always because Saddam had MORE than we knew about, whether it was his nuclear program in 1991 or the biological weapons program that Hussein Kamel spilled the beans on in 1995. The evidence of 2202 was sketchy, but it pointed to more of the same pattern of behavior. Bear in mind that Saddam could have got the sanctions lifted if he'd come clean, and was costing himself literally hundreds of billions in revenue by his "cheat and retreat" policies.
No reasonable person would give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt in that situation, and none did. Not in the US, not in Great Britain, not in France or Germany or Israel.
So what special pro-war "rationale" are you talking about?