In view of this link at Ray Robison, which lists discoveries from the recently-released documents from Afghanistan and Iraq, shouldn't we be reversing the question to the Bush critics? They have for years pointed out that there was no definitive proof of WMD or of a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. There has actually been a steady drip of evidence of both, and a steady trickle of information about WMD programs and indirect connections to the jihad. And I grant, Bush and his defenders expected more than what we have seen.
But now the faucet is being turned slowly on, and the initial offerings are "more than intriguing." You critics, do you want to take this opportunity now to categorically state "There was no Iraq-Al Qaeda connection" and "There were no WMD?"
Y'see, if you have to qualify the statements, escaping into "according to the best information we now have available..." or "the relative risk, compared to..." then you aren't answering the same type of question that was before Bush, his advisors, the Senate, the House, and the various intelligence agencies in the runup to the war. You are answering an armchair question, not a safety question.
Put more bluntly, are you now prepared to answer, on the record, what was always the real question?