"Why would people who you have declared anathema aginst on many occasions permit you to define the terms of their goodness? "

Ummm, because i'm not. Do you wish to deny that Personal Accountability is held as paramount in the Republican platform? (Hiding a dozen quotes behind my back with an expectant-yet-harmless look on my face).

"There is a test of reasonableness, and that is what the left has yet to pass."

Reasonableness WRT, maybe, where you have set the bar. I am currently finding it hard to believe that gross incompetence OR gross dishonestey is not afoot. The only options I see at this point are Conspiracy Theories regarding the last-second removal or destruction of the WMD and Terrorists.

" have asked some specific questions that have not been answered in any credible way. "

Not to me- or if you think they have, please outline them and I promise I will reply.

"If the policy of regime change was good enough in 1998, and if the world became provably more dangerous in 2001, then when did Saddam and his baathists stop being worthy of long standing American policy goals? "

Well, I'm not sure it was good enough in 1998. It wasn't for me, at least. And I don't thing the world became more dangerous on 9/11/2001. I think we just got a VERY ugly wake-up call to what has been brewing for 4 decades. All this aside, there were and still are no credible and solid connections between Saddam and the observed dangers of the 'post-9/11' world- Namely terrorist ties with Al-Qaeda. So Like I said, its a multi-billion dollar red herring.

"The same evidence and threat assesment was used in 1998 as in 2001-2003. If there is a big, Bush accuontable, evil failure here, then so far the explanations of the left are completely non-credible.
"

I can only reply in the same wy I reply to Tom, and I don't think any of these points have been addressed.

1) Anyone who claims that the material facts are the same in 2003 as in 1998 is incompetent and is exhibiting massive lack of due dilligence. Anyone who says that they have evid3nce of a proposition in 2003, that was claimed in 1998 is lying.

2) The 1998 various and sundry reports were not, NOT used as a justification or argyment for open warfare, and as such were likely not as vetted or held up to the same bar as material supporting war SHOULD be.

3) No claims were made of the sort 'in 1998... therefore war today' the claims were about the present clear danger posed by Saddam and his WMD and terrorists.

Trying to play 'but-mommy-they-did-it-too' with the left does NOT absolve the accountability issue. The left did not pull the trigger, nor did the UN, nor did france etc.

"Again, as I have stated here and elsewhere, if there is a real deliberate fraud or gross dereliction of responsibility, then Bush should be held accountable. "

I hope so, but all I see is BLATANT resistance to investigation by public and private partisons, and really morally worthless efforts by many to make 'it doesn't matter' arguments, or to change the debate to 'well saddam was a bad man, so that justifies it'.

"The contrast to what clinton has gotten away with for his provable derelictions regarding National Security would be dramatic, "

Then prove some. I say your just being partisan. Clinton got his for boinking Lewinsky, but the record of his accomplishmnets in office is remarkable.

"but then as you have pointed out, conservatives are more ethical. "

No, I have not pointed this out. Your attempt to bait me on this demonstrates my above claim- that you are being partisan.

Davin L.