"The core issue is, based on what was known prior to the invasion of Iraq, what was known of Saddam's past behavior, what intelligence services were saying, and based on the past performance of the U.N. in the area of inspections in many parts of the world (we're not even talking U.N. corruption here), was the decision to go into Iraq justifiable?"

No, the core issue that we were discussing was the correctness of the UNI vs the correctness of the Administration. If you want to talk about the justifiabiolity of this war, thats a different issue and you should go start another thread.

Again, I defy you to point out something significant that the UNI said about Iraqi WMD that is demonstrably incorrect in the past 2 years.

"Try and hammer this home: What we know now, based on information gleaned from a destroyed regime, is totally irrelevant to whether or not the decision back last March was the correct one.."

Try to actually read this: We knew in march a year ago what Iraq had and didn't have: the UNI teams told us. You ignored them on the assertion that they were, essentially, laughable fools and dunderheads. Again I point out that their track record compared to your 'Great Leader' is quite stellar currently

"a criminal holding a hostage at gunpoint in a standoff with the police is shot by the cops, it is completely irrelevant to the decision to shoot him if it is found out later his gun had blanks. I hope this analogy doesn't bother you too much. They do have a disturbing tendency to clear away the fog you try to project over this, and they may be useful to other readers"

I don't project any Fog, Tom- I give you my reasoned argument on what I find true or false. I take it as dishonest and disingenuous that you want to ascribe to me the status of 'fog' or 'spin' machine because you still can't answer the point I'm making or the questions I'm asking.

Your analogy is absurd. Who is the hostage? Where is the gun to their head? We are police? Stupid, idiotic, untrue simplification

"Why don't you go to the U.N. site and read the inspector reports for yourself? Somehow I don't see the crystalline certainty of Saddam's innocence that you seem to ascribe to the U.N. before the war. Note that the U.N. had no clue at all about the real Iraqi long-range missile program."

Again, this is simple misdirection. I never claimed Saddam was 'innocent'. I never claimed the UNI claimed Saddam was 'innocent'. We all knew from day one that Saddam was a bad guy who would always try to escape this process. The point (concerning WAR) was: was Saddam a material thrat. The point (Concerning UNI effectiveness) is: What has UNI said in the past several years that is wrong? And as to your assertions about the missile program, all you have is David Kay saying they believed that Iraq intended to buy stuff from Korea. Not exactly red-hot smoking gun, Tom.

I also notice you don't give any lihjt to Blix's statements on this, some of which are quoted in the piece you link.

Again (and again), this debate is not about that Saddam was a bad guy or a cub scout. I know you want to try to make it about that, but its not.

"If you want to ride the "no stockpiles, no foul" premise all the way down, go for it. I myself am quite happy with the real weapons of mass destruction in Iraq currently rotting in a cell."

Thats funny, as it seems you are somewhat stuck with the "WMD Stockpiles mean we must go to war" Screw-up. Again- I point out those are stockpiles that UNI said they couldn't find and didn't see evidence of.

And if "by WMD" you really mean "Saddam Houssein", I don't ever want you to whine and moan about the awfulness of Clinton trying to jiggle over the meaning of "Is".

Davin L.