Post removed

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. Seriously? O.k. I'll play

The intel itself wasn't conclusive or, to put it another way, a "slam dunk" like Tenet called it but Bush, Cheney, et. al appear to have cherry-picked only the bits of intel- most of which was raw or uncorroborated or of questionable origin- and used it to make the "threat" from Iraq look much worse than it actually was. To me, it was a bunch of lies of omission at the very least in a zeal to rush the country to war for reasons I'm still not entirely clear on but it's very likely that there was stuff that we were told that were almost certainly lies but we may never be able to fully sort it out. Iraq clearly did NOT have any WMDs that could threaten us in Baghdad let alone Ohio and the UN Weapon Inspectors- before they were unceremoniously booted out of Iraq- told us that they weren't finding anything but Bush/Cheney wanted to invade so badly that they repeatedly ignored evidence that didn't tell them what they seemed to want to hear and went to war against anybody whom had the slightest hesitation about the war and its costs, benefits, etc. We never got a real "debate" about Iraq because the only evidence that we were allowed to hear was that which promoted the invasion and almost nothing that questioned and/or undermine the rationale for it.

I think that it's time to make the following rule: If a country can't fully control it's own airspace and/or territory, it's NOT a threat to the US.