It would appear the President Bush is now coming up with alternative reasons for the war on Iraq. He is recently quioted as follows :
Is this a reasonable thing to do ? to change the explanation for why the war was necessary. Or does this negate the legitimacy, if their was any, of the war ? Does the belief that the weapons were there justify the action, even if it turns out that there were none ?Bush conceded to veteran interviewer Tim Russert that it was "correct" that weapons of mass destruction had not been found in Iraq but emphasized a different reason why the war was necessary.
"He had the capacity to have a weapon, make a weapon. We thought he had weapons. The international community thought he had weapons. But he had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network,"
I personally think it does, so long as the belief was a genuine one. If you believe someone has a gun to your head, you are entitled to react to it. Even if it turns out to be a banana, but only if the beleif is genuine and not just a matter of convenience.