We've gone around and around on these points and that's what I was trying to say last night, while less than sober. One thing Alcaray mentioned was that we "used to" discuss things. Some times it just seams futile because there is no room for give and take. Either we were justified in going to war or we weren't.

Some of us would rather try to find justification in what we did rather than deal with the responsibility for the current state of affairs in Iraq. Some of us are certain we did the right thing.

Others have no qualms in loudly proclaiming the entire Bush administration a morally bankrupt den of liars. Some simply say "there was another way".

So in the spirit of "discussion"...

And there was a way to know: Allow the UN inspectors the time to do the jobs they were trained to do. That, at least, would have verified the absence of evidence.

Maybe that could have worked if the inspectors were accompanied by a sizable number troops to guarantee unrestricted access. Refusal on Saddam's part could be seen as justification for the use of force.

There are WMD's in Iraq -- why? Because WeSaySo.

There were unaccounted for stockpiles of VX and anthrax. Iraq claimed they were destroyed but had no way of proving it. They weren't destroyed with inspectors watching. Should we believe they were destroyed because SaddamSaidSo? The possibility remains that these weapons were moved out of the country. Can you admit to that?

There's a connection between Saddam and 9/11-- why? Because WeSaySo.

I don't know anyone here, or anywhere for that matter, that believes that.
But now we have Rumsfeld saying there was no hard evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He must have been having a senior moment.

Well, so much for trying to discuss this again. It's like watching a never ending tennis volly...