The pro-bush pro-WMD 'movement' is entirely religious in nature, is becoming a more irrational and indefensible position by the day, and is akin to anomalist thinking.

How is knowledge from pre-Iraq battle indefensible? ...Or are you going by just what is known today? Hindsight is 20/20 (you probably hear that a lot), but what was needed at the time of the attack was decisive action, not half-steppin' half-moves. The decision was made, and made with the blessing of the US populace. WMD was a very real threat from a nation that refused to discloose facts.

Can't really help the idiocy of Iraqy leadership of the time.

"Not in my name," is nothing but a copout for mamby-pamby morons without a clue as to what a democracy is.

And, yes, I do stillo see Iraq/al-Qai'da ties. You do not, and that's fine (Bowserworld revisited).

We can already tell that the claims of certain knowledge of WMD and their location (ala Rumsfeld, for example) were wrong. Entirely and categorically... Pure and simple: WRONG.

And just how does the (aledged) knowledge of today make the strike on Iraq wrong? Work it from then, not now. Of course you were likely guessing the same then as you are now, buit that still don't change the envisioned threat.

If we knew not only THAT they existed, but WHERE they were, why can't we exhibit any proof?

Because they were moved. Pure logic. They were there -- now they are not. Deal with it.

Ultimately, faith has to give way to reason. Ultimately, if any of us here wish to claim to be rational and thinking men who evaluate their politics like they evaluate any other idea, then we MUST acknowledge that in the least this administration was incorrect in its claims concerning WMD and terrorists.

Possible. Still no proof the material did not exist prior to the attack. Still no proof Iraq/al-Qai'da ties did not exist.

We call that up in the air. I like to think the Middle East is wracked with villains (been there, saw them), and that it is not outside the ability of the previous Iraqi government to hide their crimes.

Or we could rename the Habitable Zone the Anomalist Zone and let Sam, Johannes and company into the fold. Why not? Why believe one set of claims that have no evidence and are disprovable but eschew and deride another set of claims that have no evidence and are disprovable?

What? Have Sam, Johannes and company (whomsoevfer "company" might be) been banned?

In a way, it is so very sad that we are stuck here debating the existence of WMD- there are much more important issues on the table.

Agreed, but then waiting for the facts is really difficult for some folks here. Right?

Anyway:

1) The credibility of our government in the moral theatre

Yeah. Terrorists and the nations that support them really hate us.

2) The damage this administration had done to our alliances and national interests

Yeah. Terrorists and the nations that support them really hate us.

3) The definition of 'pre-emptive strike', even granting the WMD, being redefined as any violent action a superpower carries out in the absence of provocation and the absence of imminent threat

Sorry, but the threat of terrorist-controlled WMD was a very real threat to me. Maybe not to you, but I was sorta against it.

3b) the very real effect this has had on the Military Policy of China WRT Taiwan

Yeah, we made the holy nation of China get mean with the free nation of Taiwan. Big change there.

4) The fact that, before the conflict, many claims made about Iraq by the bush administration were patently false and disprovable to any interested party with a search engine. Including, but not limited to:

I see you’re still operating under the assumption that all military intel is released via the net to the general public.

4a) That Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda operatives and was acting in concert with them

Were they? I see it “still” as a very real possibility.

4b) That Iraq had purchased plutonium from African states.

Never read that, so no comment.

5) The COMPLETE and TOTAL failure of the attack on Iraq of accomplishing the broader stated goals of the attack, namely but not limited to:
5a) Bringing N Korea to the table in a meaningful way(hasn't happened)

You expect the nation of North Korea, with various strong US allies within WMD missile strike range, to be quaking in their boots? Where did you see this as a goal? Perhaps as a lesson to terror-states, but I never saw the connection you seem to be grasping for.

As for the talks, they’re slated for August, and North Korea is “invited.”

5b) Cutting down terrorist activities in the middle east and wider world (the contrary has occurred)

Attacks have occurred, some very large, but the stated “activities” are being reduced.

5c) Urging the Palestinians to eschew terrorist strategies (no dice there)

The Palestinians? Do you mean the Hamas? Palestine has agreed to back off attacks. The terror extremists do not.

I never expected anything less. Why would you?

5d) Bringing Iran to heel (not gonna happen, has not happened)

Don’t pay any attention to the media in Iran right now. Iran insists the spreading protests arte nothing but disjointed incidents of little to no merit.

Always believe the Iranian governament.

6) the CURRENT and OBSERVED failure of the US to bring the promised 'stable democracy' to Iraq.

As stated in the televised and web-based media sources, conditions in Iraq are better than they were prior to the battle of Iraq.

That’s just another fact.

7) That this government has locked us into an occupation consisting of more than 50% of our forces for an indefinite period.

Yeah, it could go on for months.

That there are no WMD, that our government either LIED about WMD OR was so entirely STUPID as to believe that mountains of WMD existed is only one slice of the pie that is plastered to the face of America right now.

Well, you get what you vote for.

We got real problems folks. I mean REAL problems. Are we more interested in solutions or in ideology and being right?

Yep.

Dan