L. J. - "Now, when it comes to "incontroverible evidence of imminent attack", that happens more often in the movies than in real life."

So what? The phrase is from your source. You don't get to say this is the requirement but it's hard so you just have to go on suspicion. Is that hard to understand?

Next, and this seems, at least, to be silly.

L. J. - "Just a couple weeks ago, you were lambasting the Bush administration for not taking actions to stop the 9-11 attacks based on the sketchy evidence available at the time. Obviously, there were some major intelligence failures in the years leading up to the attack."

Yes. They saw a punch coming, and didn't block it. I do fault them and their bosses. Actually I fault the bosses, who still have their jobs, and not the worker bees.

L. J. - "It's kind of funny that you then take the word of the same intelligence agencies when it suits your argument that there is no evidence that Saddam has anything to do with WMD. It sounds like you're cherry-picking your sources when it suits you rather than trying to find the truth."

That argument was used a while back and was just as bogus then as now. They had information regarding attacks. THEY SHOULD HAVE ACTED ON IT. I'm not faulting the information they had. See?

They say THEY DO NOT HAVE INFORMATION regarding Iraq and WTC. I'm not faulting them for saying they don't have the information.

It's not that complicated. It really isn't. They had information, should have acted. They don't, can't act.

IN BOTH CASES, BOTH, I'M BELIEVING WHAT THEY SAY. Please explain, if you can, how I'm "cherry-picking" the sources.

(I disagree with Rice, who said the warnings didn't warrant further investigation. I wonder what would warrant her further attention as NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. Just what was she doing for her money?)

Now, even if, for instance, there is a burglar in your house. You normally cannot shoot him in the back. And for sure you can't shoot him in the back if he's running out the front door and you're in your bedroom.

You can't shoot a person who's across the room even if he is drawing back his fist. You can't use deadly force in that case.

AND you for certain can't shoot a person who's across the room WHO IS NOT THREATENING YOU!

(That's simple, too, except to the self-proclaimed "geniuses" around here.)

If there are 40 people in a room you know have guns on, you can't shoot the 41st who had a gun 12 years ago but you don't have any evidence has one now.

I don't expect some of these people to understand anything simple. Some of you may, at least someday.

Arf (thank God mine are grown!)