Wait a second, so are you suggesting that it takes perfect evidence to not go to war? Don't you think thats akin, again, to conspiracy thinking? Prooving the negative case?

Or: In order to think that you were wrong and change your mind, we have to proceed to carry on a war on dubious grounds, in a direction and method that is not proving to be effective, that is billed as a great success while our troops can't even drive around Baghdad without a firefight?

Isn't it the very essence of critical thinking to question claims against fact and outcome? How do the facts and outcomes stand against the claims pre-or-post war of the current administration?

Lets throw this out now. What will be 'Absolute Confirmation'. I want to know. Just like I asked about 'Why the war' before the war- only to watch you howling 'patriots' revise and revise and revise, I want you to set a bar. Define what your conditions are. Because if recent events are not enough, I suspect nothing will.

"We have an ugly war on our hands and it's easy to say it should have never started. Hindsight- 20/20."

Hindsight? Thats interesting.

You make it sound like nobody was out there showing the evidence against Terrorist ties with Iraq, that nobody was arguing that the resulting occupation would be untenable, that the plans for reconstruction were wishful at best.

"Painting the whole mission with the broad strokes of the actions of a few social maladroits, and then expecting top dollar for the piece at auction is, the mark of a sucker if you ask me.
"

I'm not [painting the whole...maladroits]. You can't really extract that from my words. What I am wondering is why you carry on the faith. You have not answered, except to say that faith will only be over turned by absolute proof. And I am curious, what the F could that be, if no WMD, No terrorist ties, no flowers at the feet, no mission accompolished, no decline of the inugents, etc etc etc?

Davin L.