Actually we were told so many things. Most of which were not and are not accurate.

If you want to use the arguement that we were going to war because Iraq had the potential tom make WMD's then tell me which is the next on the mega list of those that fit that bill?

Yes, we were told many things, and "Iraq is an imminent threat" wasn't one of them. Try to stay on topic next time, please.

I can't watch O'Reilly for more than 5 minutes without hollering at my T.V. What he calls a "no-spin zone" is actually his spin on things. I managed to last through the whole episode with Moore. They both really screwed things up. Moore gave the "Bush lied" theory, and O'Reilly defended Bush. Then they discussed theoretically sending their children to war, and Moore tried to put words into his mouth. I totally missed the part where they only discuss the facts.

However, I continue to be perplexed as to how the U.S. had to take pre-emptive measures in Iraq while North Korea has nukes, and is still developing them, illegally. If that isn't a threat, I don't know what is.

O'Reilly is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. The same goes for Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et al. I can form my own opinions, thank you very much. I don't need to have them shouted to me by talking heads who probably don't even know what they're saying half the time.

As for the Iraq pre-emption thing, I think it was about strategic placement. We had to pick a target to go after, and not only was Iraq the easiest, but it puts us right near Syria and Iran so we can better deal with them. Hopefully, that'll put us in a position to eventually give Saudi Arabia what's been coming to 'em for a while.

But I'm no foreign policy expert, so what do I know?