"You seem unclear on the nature of conscience. It's the opposite of a herd phenomenon, because the opinions of the majority are just conventional wisdom. Conscience means disagreeing with the majority, expressing that disagreement, and letting the chips fall where they may. It's cowardice to keep quiet and hope to be proven wrong. That's what so many good Germans did in the days of Hitler. You can't keep your head down and exercize your conscience at the same time."

Conscience is not the opposite of herd phenemenon. Nor does it mean disagreeing with the majority. It is not neccessarily cowardice to keep quiet and hope to be proven wrong. And finally, you can exercise your conscience and keep your head down.
Now, getting back to the topic, I wasn't suggesting anyone keep their head down, nor was I suggesting anyone keep quiet.

"Is your support of Bush's war based simply on a desire to be a member of the current majority?"
This is a stupid question.

"Will you switch sides when that support drops below 50%, as it's sure to do between now and November 2004?"

Well I might vote for someone other than Bush if I think there is better choice. Though I wouldn't "switch sides" on the issue of how we should resolve the issue in Iraq, unless someone can provide an argument that is "lightyears" better than the one you or the others have offered. Actually it isn't that your argument needs improving, you simply don't have an argument. None. Nada. Issue is ducked everytime. Here's suggestion: try not keeping your head down. Answer the question that Tom Brosz, asked of you and the others (a zillion times). What is the alternative solution?

Now, EVEN if you could provide some other solution [which is doubtful- unless you include foolish "handwaving" as a solution]. Despite this, you do you understand that Bush is the Commander in Cheif and YOU aren't. If you were the President of the US, THEN you could make this call.

"As for not seeing a next time, do you mean you don't believe Bush's promise of a permanent state of war for the foreseeable future?"

It's not a matter of believing, there is no reason to think that this would take a short time.

"You think he won't take action against the surviving members of the Axis of Evil?"

Of course, he will [and is taking] take action against the Axis of Evil. If you mean by action, invasion or bombardment by sea and/or air, this isn't going to happen. Unless one [or all] of members make serious mistakes. What line Iran or Syria would need to cross, is unknown to me. But I would guess that both Iran and Syria are involved at "some level" with covert operations in Iraq. It's quite possible that the top leadership isn't even in the loop. This could lead to a flap, which if handled poorly could get worse. We are probably going to follow any terror group in Iraq which crosses borders. How are these other countries going to respond to this? Etc.
As far as N Korea, we are going to shut down it's arms sales- or least lower their profitablity. N Korea needs it's arms sales. US and China [plus the Russians] control the oceans in the region. China controls land route. China is key part of this. China will control the results, and because of trade and security in region they are probably going to at least appear to force N korea to a more peaceful position.

"Just what do you believe, gb? Anything not based on expediency?"

I think action which is expedient for a nation is proper, I suppose you prefer inexpedient action.
As far as what I believe, hmm, probably better if you take the red pill on that one:)