>It has been pretty well documented that our leaders invaded Iraq based on "facts" they knew weren't true. There were no weapons of mass destruction and they knew it. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and they knew it. Bush and Cheney lied to us. I do not find that acceptable.
>

To say that they knew they were choosing to slant their presentation of the intelligence to make what they thought was in the US best interests more palatable to a public with a 2 minute soundbite attention span would certainly be fair.

To say "There were no weapons of mass destruction and they knew it." insults the intelligence. Saddam's own officer corps didn't know there were no WMDs. In the intelligence sphere to say you "know" anything is considered silly.

This argument is entirely outside the legitimate policy question as to whether invading Iraq was a good idea. And certainly separate from whether the occupation has been a bungle.

It is sheer political nonsense to say anybody "knew" anything. It is a political argument, a sound-bite which should be reserved for getting a "You tell 'em Dude!" at moveon meetups. And it is factually wrong. The WMD issue was certainly not the entire raison d'etre for the Iraq invasion, but to say it was completely fabricated by people who 'knew' it to be false really assumes facts that have certainly not been proven, no matter how loudly they've been shouted.


>
>>You are changing the heart of the discussion and twisting my words. The discussion was whether the intentions when going to war in Vietnam were better or more honorable or more just than the intentions when going to war in Iraq.. That was what you wrote and I responded in disagreement. The intention when we went to war in Vietnam was no more just than the intention when we went to Iraq. You cannot change the intention at the time based on updated information gained years later. Your statement was written about intention, not what we now know about either Vietnam or Iraq. What was believed to be true at the time, is what led us to war. You stated intentions. That has nothing to do with whether or not I would defend the Iraqi invasion.
>>
>>As a separate discussion completely, I would indeed defend the Iraq invasion. We went to Iraq, and I, along with the majority of Americans, listened to the intelligence information presented and believed Iraq to be a direct threat to the U.S. We didn't go to Iraq based on what we know now, we went based on what we thought we knew then. I am still waiting for whoever is truly responsible for misleading the leaders of this country and the American people with false (intentional? not truly known or at least not proven yet) intelligence. Now, we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people to help them become a secure and safe democracy because we created the mess there and cannot leave them until they ask us to. Our country is responsible for the mess.
>>
>>
>>
>>>So we disagree. It wouldn't be the first time. I am not being obstinate but am not backing down.
>>>
>>>Are you actually defending the Iraqi invasion? Because you seem to be.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I totally disagree with this:
>>>>
>>>>>I am not taking anything away from Charles, who I like and respect as much as anyone here. But I still submit that we entered the war in Southeast Asia with way better intentions than we took into Iraq. That was my only point. I think historians will agree with me.