Who cares what polls show about the nation confusing the threat of Hussein with 9-11? A great many of our citizens can't find their state on a map, so I don't expect them to understand the complexity of the circumstances that led us to Iraq.

Yes, the Bush administration pushed a connection between Hussein and 9-11. But they did not say he caused 9-11. There was the belief he met with Al-Queda and somehow helped them. But the real issue was that Hussein was attempting to build a nuclear arsenal to aim at the US. The point wasn't "He caused 9-11." The point was, "We don't want something that makes 9-11 look puny."

It was a valid argument, and Christopher Hitches still supports it. However, as we can learn from any debate class, having a strong argument on your side does not mean having the truth on your side.

Did Hussein already have materials? Was he looking for them, and would he have gotten them had we left him alone? As to the first question, there was that disturbing refusal to let us really investigate certain places, and the transporting of things out of the back and into trucks when inspectors were going in the front. Doesn't sound like everything was on the up and up. Then we were refused the right to investigate at all. Again, not wise if your goal is to assure the UN, and the US, and the world that you are not trying to develop nuclear capabilities.

Hussein could have avoided this war. He could have stopped talking tough. He could have complied. He seemed to want to present the image that he was a real threat to our nation. Yet there are no weapons. None found, none expected to be found. Was it all about looking tough on Hussein's part? Was his ego so huge he would sacrifice his rule, his life, and his nation to maintaining a he-man pose? That's what it looks like.

And please don't forget, Clinton himself at the time said "We don't know what he's got. We can't be sure he doesn't have the materials." It was quite a jolt when Clinton was willing to consider the Bush White House perspective.

Yes, I think Bush was looking for any reason to go to war with Iraq (I believe he wanted to restore his father's legacy). But Hussein almost seems like a partner in this. He did everything right in terms of supporting the argument Bush made. There seemed to be a real threat, and Hussein played up his potential as a threat. I don't think, from the perspective of what we knew, there was any other choice than to invade the country.

Sactorob,

I don't think you understand the internet. You put something out there. Something that hangs in cyberspace in a column that allows responses. There is no "end." Your question, Cary's response, and the barrage of reader responses will be out there at least until they revamp the format, and likely until the site shuts down. Even after your letter is taken off the front page, it will remain archieved, and the archived questions are still open to reader responses. If this troubles you, and it looks like it does and you just want it to stop, the only thing you can do is stop it in your own life. In other words, stop reading the new comments, don't come back to check what others keep saying.

I think you consider this to be your issue, and therefore you should have the last word (maybe I'm wrong). But there is no "last word" in a format such as this, except for the last entry any one of us chooses to make. And from the moment your letter was posted on an advice forum that is open to readers, it stopped being just your property, and became that of anyone on the World Wide Web. No way around that. No way to be sure that everyone gets who you are and what is really going on at your office. No way to stop their responses even if they are utterly clueless as to the reality of the situation. No way to stop the people who aren't even really concerned, but they're surfing, bored, and feel like commenting, just the way people channel surf, comment on television shows, and really have no stake or interest in what they are saying.

Mike does sound complex, and it sounds as if you have changed your mind as you have evaluated him. Which would seem to be a good thing to me. I hope it works out. I can't help but wonder, since you are baffled by the very typical situation which is the reader-responses on an internet advice column—"Why do they care so much about a stranger? Why can't they see I know my real life better than they do from a letter that intentionally provides only one sliver of the whole environment? Why don't they stop talking now that I've addressed their issues"?—how well you are reading the situation at work. Guess all I can say is "good luck."