From my memory: the anti-war movement was unfortunately small. W/in that movement there was skepticism about the proof of WMDs, as well as outright rejection of the 9/11 connection. However, the best argument against the war was always that preventative war=illegal & unjustified.
https://twitter.com/KatzOnEarth/status/1373451620646850561
I was certainly dubious about the existence of WMDs. The admin's evidence was clearly weak & the UN was not allowed to finish their work. However, "WMDs: Yes or No?" can lead us down a garden path. We shouldn't have invaded even if they had existed. Preventative war is illegal.
I say "preventative" b/c "pre-emptive" is a misnomer when it comes to Iraq. Pre-emptive implies some mitigation of future weapons-use. All the Bush admin had was some flimsy evidence that weapons might exist. That justification is much weaker than cases where a strike is possible
When I say the anti-war movement was small, I was not trying to diminish it. I was largely talking about the relative strength of anti-war voices w/in the U.S. I was one of these voices. There were many passionate fighters, but the broad public sentiment was against us.
Here is data to support my point. The anti-war movement was passionate & the media did not give it enough credit. Large protests were held throughout the country. At the same time ~70% of Americans approved of the invasion. pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/pub… 
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
