[liberallarry]

And thus far more likely to use terrorist proxies, who would not leave a Baghdad return address.

Your fantasies are not reality.

I supported - and continue to support - our intervention in the Middle East because I think its culture is terminally dangerous. But I also believe - and support - the idea that the Administration exagerated the immediate dangers because its real reasons could not honestly be sold to the American public, and lack of action would have exposed the country to ever worse dangers.

[StriperSniper]

the idea that the Administration exagerated the immediate dangers

That is the real fanasy, the words in the SOTU were "growing and gathering" threat, not imminent.

and lack of action would have exposed the country to ever worse dangers.

If you let a threat "grow and gather", the dangers would indeed become worse, no?

[TomB]

But I also believe - and support - the idea that the Administration exagerated the immediate dangers

Your statement is very apropos for a discussion of the "Big Lie".

Here is what Bush REALLY said in the State of the Union:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

Obviously, he is not stating the threat is imminent, but that it would be a mistake to wait until it is thus.

[jla]

But I also believe - and support - the idea that the Administration exagerated the immediate dangers because its real reasons could not honestly be sold to the American public, and lack of action would have exposed the country to ever worse dangers.

What are you thinking the "real reasons" could be?
I myself don't think the Bush admin exaggerated one bit. I don't think the American people needed to be sold on the idea of our intervention into Iraq again.