Okay, well, so you claim that for you justified self defense was not the primary goal. If it wasn't, and you agreed Saddam was a visible threat, it would be interesting to see what WAS the primary goal for you, and just HOW those priorities are assigned ABOVE Self Defense.... That is if you can do this with your nose remaining at its current length.

In otherwords, if you believed that Saddam was a clear and present danger to our country, but did not believe the war had that as the the primary justification, then I am quite puzzled. And I question your rationality in warmaking decisions.

And "Regime Change" is only predicated on Saddams regime being a threat... Is this True or False? Please answer.

"Spin is telling only part of the story to support your side of the argument. It's pretty clear who's spinning."

Yes, I suggest that it is you who are spinning, and not me.

I suppose you could argue that Regime Change was *actually* predicated on how Saddam treated his subjects. But if this was the only foundation for regime change, then there are a dozen countries around the world (some our allies, like Hati) that we should be at war with BEFORE Iraq. And I don't see any agitations from war against (insert favorite nutcase country, like China, here) from you to date.

So please, do provide a clear statement of your priorities WRT justifications for this war. I would find that quite interesting, and since you accusation of dishonesty and spin is still on the table, I would think that if I am ever to take you seriously, you should do so. Shall I dig through old Mark Eby posts until I find one claiming a justification for this war on the basis of clear and present danger? I don't have *that* many bookmarked, but I might very well find one or two.

Davin L.