Bush had to make a judgment.

Let's ignore for the moment that Bush's judgment in this case (and all others) was tragically wrong. Let's instead just focus on his intentions. By believing Curveball and ignoring Saddam's foreign minister, despite corroborating evidence and comments from our allies regarding the credibility or lack thereof, Bush and his cronies showed their predisposition for war, facts be damned. That is a horrible crime.

I still believe that we are safer with Saddam dead and Qaddafi (sp) scared into giving up his weapons.

Your belief does not make sense. When Saddam was in power, we had one ineffectual tinpot dictator who thought bad things about us but could never do anything. Now we've got thousands and thousands of insurgents who are pissed off that we turned their families into jelly. But you feel safer without Saddam. Good for you.

Now, suppose we guess that Iran doesn't have the ability to make a nuclear weapon and then they test one.

Why stop there? Why not include every scary-but-incredibly-unlikely scenario under the sun? Suppose we assume werewolves aren't real, and then you get attacked by one? What should we do? Cover ourselves in garlic, and keep guns with silver bullets available at all times?

Is that scary enough for you? Is that scary enough for our allies the Israelis? How scared do you have to be to act?

An honest, respectable Republican (remember those?) once said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." I strongly recommend you change your Depends and repeat those words.

How many times will blumie keep regrgitating old news? We know Bush didn't believe the intel that said Saddam didn't have WMD. We also know that he wanted regieme change.

Until he's impeached and imprisoned, of course. That's what a civilized society does with criminals like Bush. I mean, why do we have to keep hearing about Phil Spectre and the woman who died in his house? Should we just stop talking about it because it's old news?

Or should it continue to occupy the public mind until justice is done?

Take your time.

WMD was never the only reason we went into Iraq.

And as we see, it never was a reason at all, just an excuse fed to a public and congress who had the quaint notion that, without some kind of threat (and that could only be posed by WMDs), we had no business going to war. The reason why people still have a problem with the missing WMDs is because their absence completely undermines the reason we invaded in the first place, rendering this whole adventure a tragic mistake. And this has huge ramifications for what we should do about it now.

You have a great letter in every respect but one - that quote was from FDR, probably the greatest Democratic president ever.

Well, I'm embarrassed. I always thought that was Teddy Roosevelt who said that one.

Let's unravel your Bush apologies, shall we?

First of all, the information seems to come from two former CIA officers. Well, if they are former CIA officers, how up to date would their intelligence be expected to be?

My understanding was that the officers are now no longer with the CIA, but they were still there when this intel was being gathered. Therefore, their intel could be expected to be completely up-to-date.

But if it's the former, well, how trustworthy is the foreign minister of the country you plan to wage war on? Isn't he likely to say whatever he needs to say to avoid war?

Sure. So, rather than simply discount everything he says as a lie, a prudent approach would be to check up on his claims. Which is what was done. And what did they find? That his claims checked out. (We now know this was an indication that his claims were true.)

On the other hand, it was the word of a foreign minister versus the word of a taxi driver and conman. To assess which was valid, a prudent approach would be to check up on the claims of the cab driver. Which is what was done. And what did they find? That "Curveball" had serious credibility problems.

This isn't an issue about accepting the forpol minister's word as gospel. It's about including that word in the intel assessment, so people can make educated decisions about important things like war and peace. By purposely not including this in the assessment (did I mention that this actually turned out to be true?), Bush prevented Congress from understanding the true picture. That was a crime.

Basically, Christopher, your profound indifference to the well-supported claim that the president lied to get us into an unnecessary war says a lot about you. Hot air, you say? And what was all that that Bush uttered in 2002 and 2003 about the WMDs?

Why do draft dodgers like Joe Conason find it necessary to attack the troops?

Draft dodger? Conason? Please explain. What draft? Or, did you just make that up, because you couldn't refute anything that Conason said about the war?

And attacking the troops? Which troops did Conason attack? Patreus? That would technically be "troop," not "troops." And in addressing the credibility of the Patreus report that Patreus did not write, Conason rightly points out that the source of the actual Iraq assessment -- the White House -- has been dishonest and flat-out wrong regarding every single assessment they've provided on Iraq since 2002. Given that, does it not seem prudent to view their latest claims with some skepticism?

Petraeus is 100 times the man that Conason is.

Be that as it may, where do you fit in? At least Conason can write a truthful argument, something you were unable to do.