I said nothing about your integrity, which, as a matter of fact, I believe to be quite high.

But a lot of these arguments, and not just on Iraq, are seemingly a matter of selecting which facts to trumpet. You will note that Don does not equally divide his posts between good news and bad news about the Iraq efforts. This does not make him a liar, or someone with no integrity, but his one-note bit has irritated some here. Not me, particularly.

There are certainly people without integrity in this argument, around the world. Those who opposed Bush in Iraq, but supported Clinton when he made the same arguments for military action. Those who deride the Patriot Act, then worship at the feet of Fidel Castro and other oppressors. Political flunkies...my side, right or wrong.

I do not believe very many, if any people on these boards fall into this hypocritical category, and certainly I have never accused you of such.

I'm sure you can think of many examples in the other direction, such as those who claim to support the conservative ideals of free trade and limited government, but laud Bush for slamming on new trade restrictions, failing to put the brakes on government spending, and supporting new and costly entitlements and spending programs. Is there a veto pen in the house?

I still support Bush's actions in Iraq, because although we haven't found a gun that smokes enough for your satisfaction, I believe that Saddam's patterns of behavior and past involvments with terror, WMD, and other things lead me to believe that such a gun will be found. From a more simplistic standpoint, there is one fewer totalitarian goon in the world.