...What makes the crackpot and the kid's claims stand out is there's such an abundance of evidence to the contrary that it's absurd to treat them seriously.
but apparently I'm supposed to take the word of various politicians on why something was / is a good idea instead of looking at all the facts I can gather and making an independent judgment.

If one presumed all the blather about Saddam, threat and WMD was accurate -- and it quite obviously was not at the time to anyone who paid attention -- then some of the arguments here would make sense. If, OTOH, one did not believe that blather (and I didn't know very many who did but obviously I lead a sheltered life or have weird relatives, friends and acquaintances...) then one would do a quite different cost-benefit analysis based on quite different parameters compared to the person who believed a politician or political appointee -- or a pundit...
We've seen agreement on neither. Ever. From any perspective. In any form. Period.

If there is another way to determine whether or not a threat warrants an adventure, please share.
Just so...