BTW, mark, I wrote my last two posts at 2:00am after I had been out with my fiance to a bar for substantial, er, 'liquid libations'. A rare event that she and I feel in the mood for carousing! So while I hold true to the content of those posts, they were very blunt, even for me, and probably deserve an apology.

"Why is it people with selective memory always accuse others of lieing when they forget inconvenient facts."

Please expand, what facts am I missing? You don't really expect me to believe that after MONTHS of hammering the american people, our allies and the UN about the WMD dangers and the justifications for pre-emptive action that this war was about setting the Iraqis free, do you? I think you are very mistaken if you want to paint this elephant. There simply isn't enough paint in the world.

"You on the other hand appear to be a rapid Bush is always wrong type and frankly "

Mark, I supported bush in Afghanistan, I thought it was perfectly and professionally handled (until the occupation and reconstruction strategy flopped). I also thought he handled the Sept-11th events very well, and presented a human and sympathetic front to rally the american people. He did a good job. I said that before here- I just doubt you have read it.

"I have no time or use for people who won't engage in honest debate."

What is dishonest about my stance? I think you are being dishonest by trying to re-cast the war, the debate, and the questions by claiming that this war WASN'T billed as a pre-emptive war predicated on WMD and terrorist threats.

Mark, I think you were the one that called all the anti-war folks cowards or morally defficient, is this correct? Did you not claim that I was on a campaigh to unjustify this war? I would say honest debate is not what you are engaging in. I think you are trying to twist this issue enough so you don't have to look in the mirror and say: "I supported the killing of thousands of people for no good reason"

Thats what I think.

Davin L.