I'll be getting out the Harcourt manual of English grammar. Maybe diagramming all the sentences will help me find some order.

Your first assertion, concerning the phrasing, was a valid point of literary critique concerning the point of view of the author, and that was all it was. I agree the topic is a very serious one that needs to be discussed.

If you had waited through the whole presentation, you would have seen the following text:

"Since March 20, 2003
U.S. troops killed in combat: 461
Iraqi civilians killed: 12071 [that number keeps shifting -- they ought to cite their source]
Weapons of Mass Destruction found: 0"

This was the statistical conclusion. The focal point was, of course, all those many quotes taken from the public record. Did you have your sound turned up?

I can't blame you if you turned it off close to the end. The animation was a little hard for me to take, too, and I don't even agree with you.

You say that this is an attempt to rewrite recent history. I disagree. If we go back to look at the wind-up to this war, the weapons of mass destruction were the major point upon which the Administration hung its arguments. That's why we have an acronym for it now, because it was repeated so often that a space-saver was needed. If WMD were not the Big Deal, then why do we all know immediately what "WMD" means? The pattern of language use shows us which issues debate was centered around.

You are very eager to find Don a liar. Is this the only way in which you can believe you possess the truth?

Most sincerely--
Mary Anne