<So on the evidence of things not seen, and the substance of facts not known we exercise our faith by placing it on Napoleon Bushaparte II.

I think one way to tell a person's politics and philosophy is by which side in many of these conflicts one chooses to trust. Bush? Saddam? Sharon? Arafat? Kim Chong-il? Maybe a real cynic assumes that everyone is lying.

The logical conclusion one draws here is that if the Bush Administration and the military have information that leads them to believe an attack on Saddam is necessary--a big if in some people's minds--then there must be a damn good reason they can't turn over the hole card to the public. I can think of a number of plausible scenarios for this, but I obviously can't prove them.

Same goes for North Korea. It's hard to tell why Bush seems to be handling it oddly, pussyfooting around with them at the same time he is aggressive with Iraq. Is this the reason? Could be. It's very plausible. Could be others.

Remember, it's not just Bush working this (and despite your dearest wishes, he's not an idiot). It's Rice, and Powell, and a lot of really smart people working this. They're not going to do things for stupid reasons. Wrong reasons, maybe--I still think Powell comes at things the wrong way sometimes--but not stupid.

I trust the Bush Administration. I particularly believe that he holds his duty to America higher than he holds his reelection. I couldn't say that for Clinton. I wouldn't have been able to say that for Gore, who proved his priorities in Florida. Maybe I'm right, maybe not.

Like I told Bowser, by this time next year one of us is going to be very disappointed, or at least surprised.