"after a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded in early July that intelligence agencies had provided false assessments of the Iraqi threat before the war, the panel's Republican chairman — Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas — said Congress might not have approved the Iraq war had lawmakers known the truth.
Roberts said that without an immediate threat that Saddam had and was trying to get weapons of mass destruction, military action against Iraq still could have been justified on humanitarian grounds but that the battle plan might have been different from a full-scale invasion. "

Why is it not plausible that the weapons were destroyed prior to the invasion? Why isn't it plausible that the capability to produce weapons was destroyed in the late '90's?

I'm not surprised, Krusty, that you have an issue with "retrospective" analysis and armchair quarterbacking (actually, Monday morning quarterbacking is more relevant) since you seem to have take issue with personal responsibility. Some Republicans are finally growing the balls to stand up and say, "Hey, we screwed up here." But in your world it's still "Blame America First."