[DustyMoment]

Bush: Faulty Iraq intel makes Iran case tougher

But, the salient issue here is, was Bush wrong to invade Iraq and take out Hussein?

IMO, the decision was warranted, "bad" intelligence (notwithstanding) or not.

More to the point, does the leftist argument that we went into Iraq on the basis of "bad" intelligence mean that we have to wait for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and an intercontinental delivery system that kills not thousands, but hundreds of thousands and, possibly, more than a million before the justification is present??

If so, which Congresscritter wants to volunter his or her family to be among the dead or missing in the target area after the strike?

These are the the nagging, niggling questions that the leftist grandstanders ignore when they hit the media's microphones to demagogue. Their demagoguery costs innocent American lives!!!

[fragrant abuse]

"Does the leftist argument that we went into Iraq on the basis of "bad" intelligence mean that we have to wait for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and an intercontinental delivery system that kills not thousands, but hundreds of thousands and, possibly, more than a million before the justification is present??"

Bing! This is precisely the line of argument we have to keep pushing.

Personally, I always thought it was weird that the administration's primary argument for doing Iraq was WMD and that Saddam's appalling abuse of Iraqis' human rights and getting democracy into the heart of the Middle East were secondary arguments until no WMDs turned up.

I guess they figured that a majority of Americans would not get behind it with those arguments - they were probably right.

In Iran, however, we are clearly facing an existential threat. We have to get the domestic politics right on this one so that we can act. Or we are screwed.