Not really though. A lot of the disinfo came from Ahmed Chalabi using a source named " curveball" and that got traction because of Chalabi’s relationship with Wolfowitz.
No Wolfowitz and it becomes much much harder for Chalabi to be listened to.
No, we wouldn’t have. There would have been no political benefit in it for a Democratic president; the Democratic base never had a hard-on for Iraq the way the Republican base did.
Sorry. This is just made-up, ■■■■■■■■ argument-by-assertion.
First, it’s a counterfactual, which is ■■■■■■■■■ Second, I wasn’t even super-lefty in 2002-2003, and I thought the war was insane. Now, Afghanistan–yes, we would have gone in. Iraq is a whole other kettle of ■■■■■
Arguably Democrats would never have bothered with asking for congressional approval for the war.
Clinton conducted a war with Serbia in 1999. Obama attacked Libya in 2011. These were major conflicts that results in deaths of thousands with no congressional authorization and barely a peep from Democrats in congress.
Democrats are itching for similar actions against their domestic critics. That is why they love Bush.
Hey, if you want to claim that Democrats are cowardly, or craven, or [insert derogatory word], that’s fine. But there’s no ■■■■■■■ way the base would have supported a full-scale invasion and nation-building effort under Al Gore in 2003.