tom wrote: "Nice dodge. Would it be that hard to even IMAGINE something?"

Um, Tom, I fell for this crap once with you, and I know exactly what you are trying to do. Its not so much as a dodge, but me not being gullible. No matter what I say, the conversation will turn to be about what I said, and not the issue at hand.

tom wrote: "In any decision to go to war, there has to be a certain level of knowledge short of omniscience about why you are doing it. In my opinion, the evidence assembled beforehand was sufficient. A lot of leaders and others agreed at the time. Some didn't. A lot agreed with the evidence, but did not agree that military action was the solution."

Oh, well, what a surprise?! You were convinced!

Then! Half a dozen of one and 6 of the other. Kill em all!

Well, Tom, I was mostly sure they had Non-Nuke WMD and entirely unconvinced that there were terrorist ties or intent to attack the US or Nuke WMD projects- thus I did not support the war.

And Why was I mostly sure of Non-nuke WMD? Because of the rhetoric of the Bush Administration. Powell, to be exact. Rummy, A$$croft and Shrub could go soak themselves for all I cared, but I had a lot of respect for Powell and was willing to buy it if he said it and I couldn't debunk it in 5 min.

I was mostly sure because I more-or-less trusted Powell on the ussue and didn't look into it. Why do so? It was plausible that they had non-nuke WMD. Hell, they had them before, right?

So there you have it. How perfectly rational people can believe incorrect propositions out of faith in dishonest or inept authority figures and lazyness.

So you, a true believer, being 'satisfied' does not really surprise me.

Its not like I looked deeply into the ChemBio WMD thing, like I did with the Al-Qaeda ties and Nuke WMD... And I am starting to wonder what I would have found if I did! As a person acting solo, with a full-time-job and a Rheumatic live-in fiance, I didn't have endless time to do research. So I took Powells word that there were Non-Nuke WMD, found no credence whatsoever with the Al Qaeda Terrorist Ties claim, saw no clear and present danger, saw no credible evidence of Nuke WMD and therefore opposed the war on that basis.

tom wrote: "In your total conviction that Iraq was as pure as the driven snow when we invaded--no threat to anyone, no WMD, no terror connections--you are taking an extreme position. "

Says you, Tom. Saddam was not pure nor innocent nor anything but a lump of rancid pig flesh. He WAS a potential threat, sure, he had proven to be so- just not to the United States. Being a threat-at-large to OTHER countries does not justify a war. It justifies a posture of deturrence and control, but not pre-emptive war.

tom wrote: "but there are a hell of a lot of smart people who disagree with you."

A hell of a lot of smart people supported communism, or the Nazis or any other number of extreemist political dogmas that got a lot of good people killed. Smart people are wrong most of the time, they are only smart because they are quicker at being wrong or a little less wrong than the rest of us. You can have your skads of intelligent folks- I'll take rigorous Logical and Empirical reasoning, thank you very much.

Oh, and truth never was a democracy neither...

tom wrote: "And do keep in mind that under the terms of the U.N. agreements, Saddam had the burden of proof to avoid consequences. We are not talking a courtroom case here."

Yes, quite right. We are not talking a courtroom case here, and the fellow who failed to shoulder the burden of proof was not who paid the price in blood. 10-15,000 Iraqis and american soldiers did. No traction there...

tom wrote: "As an exercise, I am going to go over Powell's presentation to the U.N. as a small example of a collection of evidence, and discuss some of the pieces. This is the kind of thing on which the attack decision was based. Will post it later. "

Please do, I look forward to it. Plus, remember, all that intelligence has turned out DRASTICALLY wrong, so I hold it suspect... as in possibly the product of dishonest procedures.