If you do stand by this platform copout that either position is reasonable, how can you condemn President Bush for going to war? And how do you square this ambiguous position with your statement that the United States should never go to war because we want to, but only because we have to? Surely that was your barely veiled code language to your base that we didn't "have" to go to war against Iraq and therefore shouldn't have.
If it is only reasonable and prudent for America to go to war when we have to, then how can reasonable people disagree about whether we should have attacked Iraq, since we didn't "have" to? Either we "had" to attack -- in which case reasonable people, by definition, couldn't have opposed the war -- or we didn't have to, in which case it was unreasonable (according to you) for us to attack. For once, Senator, please slide off that fence.
And if your sole face-saving claim for your absurdly inconsistent positions on Iraq is that President Bush lied about WMD intelligence, how do you account for the CIA?s and the 9-11 Commission's conclusion that he didn't lie? But if you insist on maintaining this fraud, please tell us what specific intelligence the president lied about or exaggerated. Surely not that Saddam tried to purchase uranium from Niger? ... Then what?
Are you saying the president didn't believe Saddam had WMD stockpiles, or better yet, somehow knew that he didn't? But how could he have possibly believed, much less known, that Saddam didn't have WMD when our intelligence agencies and those of all other relevant nations said he did? (I'll try not to mention again that you had access to the same intelligence as the president.)
Oh, and did you vote for the Iraq war resolution because President Bush conned you about WMD or because you thought he would only attack as a last resort? You've said both, but you can't have it both ways. If you believed he had them, you shouldn't have been in the "wait-and-see" camp.