Consider this less an opportunity to yell in each other's faces and more an opportunity to suggest opinions.
I'm wondering if you think it's necessary for us to find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Clearly there's a lot of the country left to search, so I'm not suggesting we won't but merely asking how important it is for us to find some. After all, our legal argument for invading Iraq was based largely on our argument that we had strong evidence, even characterized sometimes as proof, that they had such weapons. Granted that's since morphed into arguments that our liberation is a humanitarian effort to extend democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people, and that's a pretty laudable goal, admittedly, but one that sometimes smacks to me more of PR than policy. Whether that's accurate or rhetoric I leave to you, my question lies elsewhere.
My position is that the United States is founded on the rule of law as being a crucial and fundamental part of our heritage. Thus, regardless of our noble causes, I believe that when we strike out on an endeavor of national policy, we should follow the rules at least to which we've agreed to follow in the past. So, I have to believe that if we argued so strongly in the UN and to the American People about the importance of eliminating Hussein's WMDs, then there's got to be pressure put on our administration to validate their assertions. It occurs to me, that if we don't hold any administration to the responsibility of backing its claims in the long run, then we open our government to fabricating reality for its own purposes.
Now, I'm not so naive to believe an administration has never lied to go to war before, and I'm also not actually accusing this administration of doing that. I simply think we have a right to expect that when our government gives us a reason to go to war, that that reason be valid, legal, legitimate, and defensibly accurate.