and the 9/11 committee concluded unanimously that most of the major findings on that report were wrong, unfounded, or overblown. this was especially true of the nuclear section.
how could they have been so wrong when the 9/11 committee had access to the same intelligence the cia had? or was it they just downplayed the "some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs" part on purpose so it could be a slam dunk...
at the very least the bush admin wasn't up front with the disenting views about their "evidence" and support for the war in iraq. don't get me wrong, they had a list of other reasons to invade. but the fact that they either mistakenly or knowingly mis-stated their main reasoning in several instances to gain support pretty much borders on the line of deceit to me. i don't need to be deceived or mislead into believing what's good for our country or the war on terrorism. lay it all out on the table --good and bad-- and let's see where we stand. for whatever reason, i don't feel the bush admin allowed that to happen and i regret we didn't wait longer to go in. had we gone in as part of a UN coalition our troop commitment would probably be around a 1/3 of what it currently is.
