So, you are telling me that there WERE prohibited weapons, and the US was justified (but perhaps not wise) in attacking?


If you insist that they were not there, how could they end up in the wrong hands?

If you insist they were there, the reasons the US gave for attacking were valid.


Can't have it both ways. I have never said the execution of the war was without serious flaws- but the reasons to attack seem to me to be adaquate.

IMO