Where it gets tough is when you would really like to settle things before an American city is burning. Bush's "pre-emptive" strike, based on information in hand at the time, was the major controversy behind this war. Having suffered a deadly surprise attack by another nation understandably lowered the bar a bit for the philosophy of pre-emptive warfare.

and that's just why I've given Bush, Rumsfeld and co. such slack, or benefit of doubt, for so long now. I've got nothing in common with these deluded oppositionists which you keep mentioning .. but I do get periodic bouts of doubt about this particular exercise - thus my occasional critical or satirical posts.

Now, if IRAN gets dangerous - you won't be getting any argument from me regarding pre-emptive intervention. That is a real dangerous rogue state, and must be brought into line ..

I'm still saying: I can't support a war unless i have an absolutely clear appreciation of its necessity. Iran would fulfill that criteria .. in the meanwhile, I can only say: I hope you and Bush turn out to be correct, as I would rather see him vindicated that discredited, actually .. then at least I could know that it wasn't such a terrible brutal waste after all, but that it was indeed all for the good, in the end. But the stakes and suffering in any war are so high, that I must be very careful before committing myself to supporting it.