How you've leap to the incredible conclusion that I'm somehow itching to invade Iran, I really find baffling.

Because from what I've seen, the only people arguing the "let's not believe the NIE" line are the ones who were heavily invested in the idea of invading Iran. Unless you've always been this skeptical of NIEs in the past (for example, if you were equally as skeptical of the 2005 NIE that said Iran nearly had a bomb), the timing of your skepticism is interesting.

That's speculative, unless you can source some documentation. And you can't because it doesn't exist. The NIE report on WMDs was part of a worldwide intelligence failure. If the Bush Administration "cooked the books” then so did France, Germany and a host of other countries. And that's rather unlikely.

From this regurgitation of GOP talking points, I'm now betting that you are in the Norman Podhoretz camp regarding your motivation for casting doubt on the NIE. Just saying, if you want to pretend that your a "serious-minded, objective person just wanting the best for America," you need to make sure you're not mouthing propaganda that is provably false.

About documentation of how Bush operatives stovepiped intel regarding Iraq, here it is:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?specific_cases_and_issues=officeOfSpecialPlans&timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq

Does this contain a notarized statement from Bush and Cheney saying "I YOUR_NAME_HERE intentionally cooked the books on the Iraq intel, in order to fraudulently take the country into an unnecessary war?" No. Does it contain a stagging number of inferences, such that a 5-year-old could connect the dots? Oh yes.

As for the "global intel failure," sorry, that's wrong. There were many doubts about the intel in foreign intel bureaus that were systematically excluded from our NIE. For example, Curveball, on whose testimony the whole WMD idea was founded, was regarded as a completely uncredible witness by German intel. And it turns out this skepticism was well-placed, as Curveball was lying his ass off. Do you find this qualification in our NIE? Negative. There are other examples like this. Fact is, foreign intel had reasons to believe Saddam had WMDs. They also had reasons to believe he didn't. The former were embraced by our politicians, the latter discarded. Systematically. Note that the providers of this foreign intel generally did not find it so compelling as to want to join the invasion, no matter the backroom armtwisting that was going on. (See the Afghanistan invasion for an example of a very different situation in which the Europeans were glad to cooperate.) This does not portray the foreign intel bureaus in a bad light so much as it does our own politicians, the ones you voted for (twice).

Again, a stupendous leap to yet another fantastic conclusion -- that I am pro-war.

There's that saying about ducks.

Similarly, if you see me arguing in favor of, say, universal single-payer health coverage, you'd be safe to assume I'm in favor of that. Isn't it funny how our words have a way of describing what we really think?

I agree. It HAS happened before. Which is why I said, "Democrats SHOULD be doing is scrutinizing the living hell out of this new report."

Who says they're not?

In the meantime, it appears that they believe that the more dire threat to the country comes not from Iran who may or may not have a bomb in 10 or 15 years time. Rather, they believe it comes from a president who clearly wants to drag the country into another war that is proving just as unnecessary as the one we're already in.

Don't you agree that it's reasonable to prioritize things this way?

Congratulations, you've reduced your sophomoric argument to ridiculous leaps of faith, childish innuendo and pure fantasy.

Um, okay.

So I'm confused now. Was it me who was saying that the NIE must not be true when the past ones were perfectly believable because, well, that means we don't get to go to war? Was it me who inaccurately claimed that the Iraq intel problems were global in nature rather than a more particular failing among Americans? Was it me who pretended to "not necessarily be pro-war" (paraphrasing) while vigorously upholding the pro-war line? Was it me who inaccurately floated the idea that there is no evidence that Iraq intel was systematically stovepiped by the Bush Admin to give them the conclusion they sought?

I didn't think so. So, forgive me if your claim about "leaps of faith, childish innuendo and pure fantasy" comes across as a wee bit hollow.

Once again, a Bush supporter describes the precise limitations of his worldview, by showing which aspects of reality are not allowed into that worldview.

As Ferris Bueller came back to say after the closing titles, "Are you still here? It's over. Go home." Or in your case, back to to your mother's basement. Happy holidays, my friend.

APPLAUSE! Well refuted! Damn, I sure have been put in my place, haven't I? I mean, sure, you weren't able to address much of my argument. But mother's basement! I'm speechless! Sure, it may have been pure projection, but it prevents you from having to address anything substantive.

Good luck with that. Oh, and keep checking on Syria. You know Saddam shipped all his WMDs over there just before the invasion, right?