Misled?

A reader dissents:

I am sorry, but I must once again vehemently disagree with your assertion that we were misled.  All of this uncertainty was apparent before the decision to go to war was taken.  Did you not watch the Scott Ritter debate on Tim Russert? Every uncertainty was made clear in various ways. Was the administration adamant about things that turned out to be false? Yes, they were. I cannot speak for you, but I fully considered the possibility that Saddam had no serious WMD before we went in. It is true probably that many did not, that they listened only to what the president and his staff said. I cannot claim that nobody was misled, but I certainly was not. I supported the war, because I saw no reasonable alternative. I still don't.

You assert that maybe the threat of invasion could have propped up sanctions and inspections. That may be, but only for a time. To believe that Saddam never would have escaped the sanctions is not reasonable. There were good reasons to argue against the war. In retrospect many people are justified in saying we should have looked harder for an alternative. But for those who make a living following the debate to claim they were misled is to make a claim that subverts either their credibility or their competence.

I am sorry I had to say it that way.