[Cyrus]

Nice try, though.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush worked with the best though imperfect intel and advice that he had and believed that we couldn't run the risk of Saddam acquiring WMD's no matter how low the probability might have been. And the quotes above clearly show that the Democrats believed the same and are now hypocrites and the actual liars if they claim Bush lied.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, sorry.

What you haven take the trouble to quote is posturing and politicking --nowhere is there a call to invade and wage war. The fact is that the Democrats have been urging co-operation with other allies (Britain is not a serious ally, it's more like a butler to the U.S.) and use of the services of the United Nations.

The fact is that, as so many prominent (and hawkish) Democrats and Republicans (e.g. Kissinger) have maintained, it was very dubious if Saddam Hussein's Iraq constituted and clear and present danger to the security of the United States. Those people suggested that if that were the case, the president should attack and invade with haste and without consulting anyone! But they did seriously doubt the picture of a dangerous and threatening Iraq that was painted by the pro-Israeli, neo-conservative administration of Dubya. These people were arguing that, if the invasion had other objectives, besides security, it should be carried out following intense and consistent diplomatic efforts. That did not happen.

Even if Iraq was, at some point in time, "dangerous", that threat had been for all practical purposes nullified through a regime of severe sanctions, on-the-ground inspections, air & land monitoring and the implementation of no-fly zones. This system was working and the U.S. had no reason to go overboard -- as the various anti-war (but hawkish) factions maintained and as subsequent events proved.

Attempts to turn this around and present a different picture are a bunch of bluffs.