Bush knew that Saddam didn't have WMD

[MODU]

Which also indicates that the salon story is wrong, since we have already found WMDs in Iraq (as we've discussed on here before).  The problem is, it wasn't the quantities that we thought they would have, and in some cases, it wasn't the materials themselves that we thought.  This is the problem when you depend solely on intelligence provided by dissidents, since we did not have anyone in the country at the time providing intelligence directly to us.  The big mystery, however, remains.  What happened to the stuff we provided them?  Where did it go?

[MODU]

This is the problem when you depend solely on intelligence provided by dissidents, since we did not have anyone in the country at the time providing intelligence directly to us. 

There were weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq which Bush pulled out prior to launching the invasion. The whole idea that "we didn't have the intelligence because we didn't have anybody in the country" is such BS.

I'm talking about imbedded intelligence, such as CIA, not weapons inspectors.  Remember, our inspectors were being shuffled around and denied access to many areas prior to the second phase of the war, so that alone provided belief behind the "he must be hiding them" claim which most of the Western nations governments believed.

[MODU]

That might be, but it doesn't change the fact that the article provided is incorrect.

[MODU]

The problem here is the number of people downplaying the quantities of WMDs was so slim, that they were going to be discounted automatically.  So, say out of 100 people, only 3 had doubts, the vast majority opinion was going to win out.  And for the 3 to actually be correct after the fact doesn't mean the information used was cherry picked.  It meant that the majority opinion and data at the time appeared to be accurate, and action was needed.  There is no semantics involved.  It is the logical threat assessment process for any given issue.

[MODU]

ummm, ok.