That's very likely the last time I'll respond to anything you write because, from what I've read here, you tend not to answer questions or make much sense anyway.

While that's just fine by me, I'll answer at least once out of courtesy.

The short form is, the facts were available before the war started, many people besides myself knew the supposed explanations were garbage, and dreaming up theoretical scenarios that bare no resemblance to reality is a poor way to craft an argument, let alone run a country.

I'm always impressed with how many insightful people there are here that somehow failed to make a dent in the case for war, or even provide bona fides for actually possessing said insight. But no matter. What wasn't theoretical was that Saddam had a previous WMD capability and nuclear program, invaded two previous countries, was a mass murderer, and we now understood that radical Islamists had no limits in destruction. Oh, and Blix said to the UN Saddam was not entirely forthcoming. Now YOU may think that's not something to seriously worry about, but you don't have responsibility for 300 million people either.

The people responsible for the aftermath in Iraq are the mofo's who invaded in the first place.

Bush and company, including myself are indeed responsible for invading, and being wrong about the politics unleashed. We're trying to make the situation better. If Dems succeed in pulling out the troops, what happens then is their responsibility. Neither option is particularly good. On the other hand, not going would leave Saddam in place. The best case scenario there is that he was bluffing. As someone responsible for 300 million people are you willing to take that chance? And if wrong, how many people would have to die before you'd consider invading. A hundred, a thousand, a million? It seems absurd now in the glare of certain knowledge gained by hindsight, but it didn't then.

This isn't about votes or withdrawal, it's about getting unvarnished information when and how they need it.

Do you actually think Congress people can keep a secret? I don't. Nor do I think splashing every bit of intelligence gathering capability across the front page is wise. Frankly, I can't understand how Dems can get seriously worked up about Plame, and then turn around and insist that other people and methods be made public.

Given his prior history of unhealthy mental habits and lack of employer-paid health plan, though, shooter's treatment will be very expensive, and the doctors are unlikely to be sympathetic.-- William Timberman

You've descended to crude insults? Tsk. I think this proves the point that intelligence is not a measure of wisdom. Or originality for that matter.

I think we'll have to agree to disgree on this one. But I do have to admit O'Hanlon looked bad after Glenn's cross examination.

Meanwhile back at the ranch the secret to formatting type is HTML symbols which are conveniently cribbed at the top of the "body" box where you type your posts. It's all a pain in the butt but we gotta work with the format provided.

Right after this verbiage above the box "1000 word limit; allowed html:" you'll see a small letter i in brackets. When you want to italicize, type in the i with brackets on either side (I can't demonstrate because it won't show up in the final product)type the words you want italicized then type /i in brackets. the / turns off the italic process. Try it in a post sample then hit preview and it will show whether it worked or not.

Doing the same with b gets you bold type, blockquote gets you indented text for quotes and so on. Sadly this format won't let us do URLs represented by body copy. Let me know if you get it. Being a conservative without kids around to teach me it took a couple of days to get "it" and get used to it.