[Nono]

Quote by: rmnunez The conclusion Bush lied is premised mainly on insufficient evidence of his WMDs after intervention and on perceived exageration regarding allegations of terrorist ties.

No, an objective fabrication.
Saddam doubtless had links with some pretty nasty people (so does Washington of course) but the idea that he was cozy with Al Qaeda is absurd, (1) because he was just the sort of secular ruler they hate and (2) because it's difficult to imagine what interest he would have had. On the contrary.

From what I've read the terrorist ties claims have solid basis and have been substantiated.

Not from what I've read -- at all.

If this was a farse from the beginning, Saddam could have proven it really easily. If the UN's inspectors had genuinely "unfettered" access to whatever they wanted to see, they'd report there was nothing forbidden going on. But at the very end there still were ostancles, Blix himself said he had the impression Saddam was in procedural, but not substantive compliance. Whatever was meant by that, it was something short of complete compliance.

Think Iran, rum. The Iran-Iraq conflict is the key to understanding th matter. Saddam made the mistake of thinking the US wouldn't really do something so stupid (thus underestimating the Bushistas' incompetence). Thinking the Americans wouldn't take action, and wishing to keep the Iranians guessing ......... he did his best to cultivate uncertainty.