Your "rightness" is indeed related to your definition of right. If rightness is specific to have prevented Saddam from transporting any WMD that most everyone believed he did have to various terrorist groups, that he factually did have contact with, that was partially achieved, although the disposition of what WMD stockpiles he did have will never be known. Point being, after 911, we couldn't simply wait to watch Saddam die of old age, so the decision was made for him to comply, or else. He chose or else
Point being that is a philosophical debate. The war was supported by a majority of the country, AND Congress, AND the intel that was being provided, AND he was given authority to act
That has squat to do with demonstrating some "proof that I've rejected" that everyone else hasn't. Proof would be:
- Sirs says x (example, xo believes that Obama hasn't spent all that much),
- and the facts have said y (example, Obama has accumulated more debt than all other Presidents combined which takes into account he's spending only a fraction on the Iraq & Afghan wars compared to Bush),
- but sirs still believes x (example, xo still thinks Obama hasn't spent all that much, because ...well because Bush spent so much on the Iraq & Afghan wars....and and...besides, Cheney said it was ok, because deficits don't matter)