Groenhogen: "I assume you feel the same way about Bill Clinton, who received a draft induction notice, worked out a deal with Colonel Eugene Holmes to serve instead in the ROTC, and then reneged on his commitment after the lottery system was changed later that year."

Hey, at least Clinton didn't join the military and then go AWOL and become a drunkard. If your entire existence is based around comparing Clinton to Bush as a weak rationalization for Bush's failures, then you've lost this point by your own hand.

It's like watching a guy at the local AA meeting who has just joined the discussion group. The self-deluding talk that he's not the problem, it's those around him that "make" him behave this way, classic self deception. He knows the drill well, hell he's used it all his life to avoid responsibility for his actions. Well now he's killed a lot of people, wrecked out nations' reputation and enabled the crash of our, and others, economy. Please get professional help sir, and stay away from any position of authority where you can ruin anyone or anything you come in contact with. You are toxic to life itself.

Groenhogen: "If Albright and Holbrooke were not lying then when they said Saddam had WMD and, thus, was a clear and present danger at all times, please tell us at what point during the 26 months between January 2001 and March 2003 Saddam got rid of his WMD."

Funny, I didn't know Albright had any power over waging war in 2001!

You know all the facts that we know...stuff like the bogus Office of Special Plans, cherry picking intelegence, etc. Well, I'm not so sure Bush knows that stuff. Remember, he is only the Spokesperson for the Neocon/GOP/Rove Kabal. He doesn't read the news, he doesn't understand the real workings of politics or much of anything else (exept how to tap a keg).

He probobly believed the nonsense that Cheyney and Rumsfeld told him.

I'm not apologizing for him, i'm accusing him of being an incompentent figure head. The ADMINISTRATION is guilty of lying, but i wouldn't be surprised if he didn't know he was lying.

Mark, may I call you Mark, Iraq didn't attack us on 9-11. There was no reason to attack a country that was contained. There was also no evidence of chemical weapons, (chemical weapons are Nuclear.... you know) There was even less evidence of biological weapons, just because someone shows you a picture of some semi's line up in the the desert, and they say those are mobile bio-weapons lab... hahahaha, do you know how difficult that would be to do? Mobile bio-weapons labs? OMG. like I said the American public and I don't blame them has little background in science, even less background in mobile labs.

a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: 'They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.'

Most scientists were highly skeptical, yet the Administration pushed their lies, knowing they were lies, but why, the ultimate question is why? I am going to come back to my original question, since Iraq did not attack us on 9-11 and there was no evidence to support that they did, yet there was ample evidence the Saudi's were behind the attack, why on earth attack Iraq? They were contained and had been for years.

Had the Iraqi's ever launched a bio-weapon attack, they certainly killed Kurds with chemical attacks but bio-weapons?

There was no evidence. They were making it up as they went along. They thought it would be easy to take out Sadaam, they thought they could teach the Middle East a lesson about American Power. Guess what, it didn't work. And then everyone else found out about their lies. Please, scientists knew it, they said it and no one listened, as usual.

I mean seriously, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, there was another from Egypt, another from Jordan and two more from Turkey I think, not one hijacker from Iraq. Why Iraq? What is the explanation for not directly confronting Saudi Arabia for their support of terrorists, they are real supporters of terrorists, it never was Iraq.

I think you're applying a very single minded and obtuse approach to military action and the reasons for going to war.

The reasons to not apply the same logic for one country as opposed to another are many and have more to do with logistics, troop safety, estimates for success, etc than the simple moral decision to act. Imagine your reaction when 50,000 troops laid dead in NK "well, at least we applied our morals evenly!". You should look at each situation as just that - a single situation that needs to be dealt with on it's own merits and circumstances.

Bush is no hero but he was President during the single worst invasion and tragedy our country has faced. To say "well, he said he was against nation building when he ran for office!" is anemic and ignores any person's ability to change their decision making process based on current events.

I am no fan of Bush. I think he did many if not most things wrong or against my own views. I don't come to my current views on the war without first feeling it was wrong top to bottom. But, I had to ask myself if I thought us NOT intervening in Rawanda was wrong. I think it was. I also think we did the right thing by acting to stop the Bosnian conflict.

Given those two items, I have to ask myself - should we have acted in Iraq - I think yes. Should we have acted in NK, I think yes but, not the same way we did in Iraq. I think our actions so far in NK have (now, thankfully) resulted in progress. Different situations, different actions but, to me, both right.