tom wrote: "Still, your entire thesis seems to be based on an absolute conviction that not only was Iraq this past year completely free of any weapons of mass destruction, methods of producing them, or plans to produce them, but that Saddam would never have attempted to develop them in the future."

My thesis again:
You don't invade pre-emptively on possibilities or plausibilites. You don't claim that a country is an immediate threat demanding pre-emptive action when it is not. You don't invade a country off of propositions that you claim certainly true when they were not certainly true. You make sure you are right and act with care. Other wise you are acting in an unjustified manner, and unjustified killing is murder.

Your wiggling my point into a proposition or a set of propositions that sound less parsimonious, more extreeme and/or trying to draw an analogy to absurd cases of child molestation, rape, child killing, robbery etc does not make your case, at least not for me. Nor will arguing that if Bush etc eff'ed up, so did the opponent of Bush. Maybe you think some people of the Hzone will fall for that. I hope its false that they will.

And it insults yours and my intelligence along the way.

Davin L.