Dan wrote:
"In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, I saw due diligence, and no acts of criminal negligence on the part of the current administration. You may have seen otherwise. That’s fine. There is no law against personal perception."

Okay, support yourself! Why is it that any monkey with a search engine is capable of debunking Al-Qaeda Terrorist ties with Saddam Insane? Does that construct due dilligence?

And if our administratin claims to have CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE before the UN that Iraq is harboring Weapons of Mass Destruction, but obviously none exist- this is due dilligence?

This is not some sort of subjectivist fantasy-land. You must think I am an idiot if I am going to buy a relativist argument.

Iraq either DID or DID NOT have WMD

We either DID or DID NOT have sure knowledge of this

We either were WRONG OR RIGHT in our justifications for this war.

There either WERE OR WERE NOT Saddam-friendly Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Iraq

We either DID OR DID NOT have sure knowledge of this.

The administrations claim was in the affirmative for all.

Afghanistan was, basically, the perfect war. Brilliantly conducted and entirely justified (not to mention JUST)- to the bone. Iraq was a anti-universe parody. Putting them in the same sentence is like putting Hilbert and Ayn Rand in the same sentence

"When did sweet little children enter into the discussion? "

Toms post, I believe.

"Hussein was, and may still be, both a convicted rapist and a convicted murderer, but he was definitely not unarmed."

Ah! Great! So it follows that it was morally justified to kill a few thousand Iraqis! Damn, you missed your calling- you should have been a philosopher!

"I just think the “smoking gun” was tossed through neighbor Syria’s window."

Okay, and your proof/evidence/reasons for thinking this way? None? Thats what I thought.

Say hello to the Yeti for me, and watch out for that probe....

Davin L.