Seeing as congress bi-partisanly voted for the war based on intel from US agencies as well as intel from other countries...
I have reason to believe that the war was deemed as warranted....and I will always argue with those that claim the intel said otherwise.....even though I never had access to the intel.
Of course, I am smart enough to realize that the likes of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi simply said they were "lied to" for political expediency.
I wonder how far you've researched the accuracy of the intel that you don't have access to in order to make your final determination as to the War being justified vs. not?
Why did you ignore the first part of my post?
Seeing as most of the intel was classified...including the foreign nation intel....I was forced to make an educated decision based on the actions of those that had access to the intel....our congress and President. (that's not an Educated decision, it's not a decision at all. It's simply trusting their decision and in effect an acknowledgement that you have faith in Washington to do the right thing).
Or I guess I could apply no thought and reasoning whatsoever and therefore not come up with an opinion and eliminate all debate...
Which, for some reason, is the direction you seem to imply we should go. (it's the only rational one. Do you choose a school for your kids without gathering all of the info on the school first? Do you buy a house not knowing the approximation of your taxes? Without getting an inspection? It's the same thing, except worse. Why is it worse? You're justifying or not justifying the killing of people using INCOMPLETE data. How is that hard to believe that one would be AGAINST making said decision with incomplete data?)
Nope...I appl;y all I can find out and take a position...
in this case:
President deemed intel was correct and made war worthy
Congress biparetisanly deemed intel was correct and made war worthy
Other nations deemed THEIR intel was correct and deemed war was worthy.
Me? Was not allowed to see intel.....so I had to base my opinion on the actions of those that did. (no, you didn't have to have an opinion at all, you could have in fact just admitted that you don't really know everything involved, which you don't, and which is the rational approach). Whats wrong with that?
Answers in there.