...the person you are defending is the only one ever convicted of war crimes.

I’m not defending anyone. I’m merely correcting most of what you’ve stated about the Iraq War.

She's not a credible source as the mindset of the administration?

Sure she is. But that’s not what you stated to /u/ceol_. You used an op-ed as evidence of a “shell game.” Ceol_ correctly pointed out that the article was an op-ed and, therefore, worthless as evidence of anything. You hedged by admitting it was an op-ed by Condoleezza Rice, therefore, it “shows the thought process behind the motives of the administration,” which of course has nothing to do with whether the source is credible. In fact, that is evidence it is even less credible. It would be like defending Barack Obama with an op-ed written by John Kerry. Just nonsense.

Sure he called for there to be no invasion but were is the investigation or court ruling on the invasion. Opinion.

If the leader of the UN declaring a countries actions illegal is merely his opinion, why did the UN never sanction the Iraq War? Regardless, it is clear your implication that the UN supported the US’s decision to go to war was completely wrong. Just shockingly incorrect.

Here is an article from The Guardian listing all the same ties that were in the GQ article.

I sleep well at night thanks for your concern.

I was merely contemplating how someone could espouse the views you have, considering the evidence that is freely available. I don’t wish for you to be tortured by guilt. I do hope you can begin to look at all sides of an issue with objectivity, no matter how personal your ties may be to that issue.