You wrote:

First, there indeed was a legitimate reason to go to war with Iraq, as is there with Iran and North Korea. (Before I get attacked, understand that I said "was". We were lied to, and led to believe that Iraq was acquiring nuclear weapons. I never bought what they were selling, and have never supported this stupid war. But if indeed Iraq had had nuclear weapons, the legitimacy of Bush's war would likely not be nearly so doubted. Big ifs, of course, but that's the point that was being made.)

***********

wrong, wrong, wrong. Even if Saddam had somehow managed to develop a nuclear weapon, just exactly how was he doing to use it? Give it to terrorists to use on us? Highly unlikely. For a whole host of reasons I won't bore you with, unless you insist.

Put it on a rocket and launch it at Israel? Surely you jest. He knew as well as anyone that Israel would just turn Baghdad into molten slag if he did that.

There were NO weapons Saddam could reasonably have acquired that would have justified invasion.

Unless, of course, you think we should have invaded Pakistan instead. Now, I could get on board with that.

One thing our government has been in all this is utterly hypocritical. Pakistan constituted--and still constitutes--the single biggest threat to our security, in the form of nuclear material, plans for nuclear bombs, and actual bombs themselves, that might end up in the hands of Taliban, or who knows who else?

Other than loose nukes in Russia, Pakistan (and to a lesser degree, North Korea), constitutes the real threat, to the extent there is one at all.

If terrorists ever set off a bomb in a major American city, we will be able to trace the origins of the device fairly readily. If you do your research, you will find that nearly any nuclear weapon, no matter how crude, has an easily established identity.

Those countries that might get a bomb into terrorist hands know this as well as we do. Do you REALLY think they'd be so stupid as to risk utter annihilation to give terrorists the chance to light up one or two bombs in America?

It's to laugh. It's as if everyone has forgotten mutually-assured-destruction. That rule still applies. Even with terrorist weapons, because unless Al Qaeda is able to make its own bomb, first to last, we'll likely be able to trace wherever its components came from..

And this is very likely why no bomb has yet been detonated in one of our cities. Because the people who would like to do that sort of thing can't get their hands on one. Ideally, they'd like a complete, user-friendly device, no muss, no fuss. But they can't get one, not even from "friendlies" like the Pakistani Intelligence Service. Those guys, no matter how sympathetic to the Taliban, or Al Qaeda, they may be, know full well that if they provide the parts, or a completed device, Pakistan is toast.

So, when you get right down to it, there was no reason--no reason at all to invade Iraq. I'm confident I, or any other more expert analyst, could shoot down any reason the trolls here might devise.

That's because the *real* reason we invaded, was for GW Bush's domestic political power, and to satisfy the most right-wing part of the Israeli power-structure...a group of people probably even more deluded than GW Bush is.

Increasingly, this entire war is looking like a raw grab for personal political power by the people involved. It's a total disaster, and the consequences will be plaguing us for a generation or more. And it was all *completely* avoidable. 9/11 or no.

Fact is, if you wanted to *avenge* 9/11, the obvious thing to do was to invade *Saudi Arabia.* That's where the money came from, that's where most of the people came from who did the deed. Why didn't we invade there instead?

I'm reaching the conclusion that the chief members of the right-wing-noise-machine are either bottomless cynics, or so stupid it's amazing they can tie their shoes. But it's abundantly clear that every last one of them is so hypocritical, and so lacking is basic analytical skills, it's a wonder they remember how to breathe.

That's been clear for awhile now.

It's so obvious that Bush and Cheney and the rest *do* ignore the troops. For people of Bush's class, the "troops" *are* invisible. They're disposible pawns.

I do think that the GOP is praying Clinton is the Dem nominee, because they have a chance of beating her.

Whereas, if Edwards were nominated? I think he'd crush anyone who the GOP might come up with. That's their fear, I'd think.

But, hell, I was utterly wrong about Bush, twice. Esp. the first time, when Gore should have won going away.

One can only imagine what Karl Rove's life was like as an adolescent. Same for Limbaugh, Norquist, and any number of other fascist nerds who have been plaguing our country in the last 15 years.

To these guys, winning is the only thing. Humiliating your opposition is the only thing. It's simply revenge for a lifetime of knowing that, behind your back, the people you really want to love you, think you're a dork. And they're laughing at you. They can't help it, because you're so completely unlikeable.

maybe I'm wrong. Maybe guys like Rove and Norquist and Limbaugh had model adolescences, loved by their peers, considered valuable by all.

But I doubt it.

I saw kids like them, in middle school and high school. We all did. I was not one of them, thankfully (I had enough problems without that too), and I can only imagine the rage that still burns in them.

Only in Texas, the capitol of fake-macho, and delusional politics, would would total pussies like Norquist and Limbaugh and Rove be idolized. It's to laugh.