Frank: That other people thought there were WMD, and that those people are 'against' Bush is not an argument that bush did the right thing. He is CinC, and the buck stops at his desk.

Few people, if any, think Bush failed to 'connect the dots' before Sept 11th. This is because most people understand that it wasn't his job to connect the blatant bits of intelligence and draw a conclusion- it was the job of the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.

That there was a failure to connect dots before sept-11th IN NO WAY excuses making connections that did not exist between dots that were spurious at best and then telling the american people that this fantastic construction was the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This is either incompetence or lying.

So these 'bu-bu-but-they-did-it-too!!' or these 'bu-bu-but-they-did-worse' arguments are pathetic partisan wriggling around the facts of the matter: Either incompetence or dishonesty led the bush Administration to claim what they claimed- as those claims have turned our ENTIRELY FALSE to this point.

As to your remark of precedence in a court of law- thats apples and oranges. A finding of fact by a court of law following the judicial process does lay precedence, for sure. But you have to make the precedence apply even in that case. In this case, there is no judicial finding and the prescedent does not apply- apples and basketballs! Mommy-they-did-it-too is NOT prescendence. If 'mommy' (whoever that could possibly be in this situation) had said it was okay for the other folks to do it, AND you were doing the exact same thing- then sure, you MIGHT have something to argue. But as it is, your kicking a dead red herring. Get off of it.

Now, WRT your confused remark about ad-hominem. When people like Mark Eby say that my debate about the truth of a certain proposition is "a campaign to unjustify the war', its the same crap as you saying 'you're just a bush hater and this is all just about getting bush'. It is an ad-hominem. Let me direct you to merriam webster:

an Ad-hominem is:

1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

So when you or Mark accuse me of being on a campaign INSTEAD of addressing what I say, then I think 2 applies. I think 1 applies in most remarks from the right, but specifically when you make unfavorable assertions about my motives or character or intentions.

In short- regardless if I am an asshole or not, you and mark are still wrong. Go piss-and-moan to someone else, but I'm not going to stand by and be accused of all sorts of things so you two can salve your wounded righteousness.

Davin L.