Whilst I agree with the sentiment of the comment you replied to, at first I read your comment, then felt a negative reaction towards your reply. My (very much initial) thought process was to try and think of a rebuttal to your request for some details.
Just taking a few moments to think (and whilst I still think that the original post is probably correct), it's funny just how easy it is to fall into an emotional reaction and justification pattern of communication.
It's hard to admit, but I'm almost certainly emotionally biased against people that I think (whether rightly or wrongly) have been directly or indirectly involved in the deaths of others. It's logically obvious that that could occur, but it's surprising that my reaction has the potential to override my (mostly logical mind) that I agree with your point and think the original commenter absolutely should provide some supporting evidence to such strong opinions.
Apologies to anyone that found this to be an overly laboured and/or irrelevant point. It felt to me like an interesting bit of introspection.
"The intelligence was as clear as any intelligence I've ever seen and I've been in this business a long time. ... When you had intelligence assessments that said Saddam Hussein has reconstituted his biological and chemical weapons and could reconstitute his nuclear weapon in a year if he got foreign assistance — by the end of the decade if he didn't — I've actually never seen clearer indications than that."
