Somebody shoot me please, I have this masochistic bent to attempt to engage folks in meaningful debate. Ah well, one convert at a time. Some questions for Rich (who I usually agree with on fishing issues), CFM, Grandpa, & others.

1. Is it important that Tony Blair is dying a slow death over in Britain because his constituents are holding him to account for the WMD issue?

2. Does it matter at all that GW's and by extension the US' credibility suffers? This time we virtually went it alone, will it matter if next time (Iran, Syria, N. Korea) we go it totally alone?

3. I thought GW was all about reestablishing integrity in the White House or are we just debating what the definition of is is?

4. Sadaam Hussein did account for the WMD (at least in his mind). He said he had none and then provided a mountain of documentation about their destruction. We chose not to believe him.

5. I thought "revisionist history" was supposed to be only practiced by the left. Can any of you honestly say that the Administration was not selling this war as being vital for the security of the US because of Sadaam's WMD?

My concern is integrity and credibility. Once again, is it good that Hussein is out of power? Absolutely!! Can we all have perfect 20-20 hindsight? Why not, this is America!! But, on a deeper level I am concerned about the Machievellian nature of this Administration. It's an old arguement - Does the end justify the means? If you gain what you want at the expense of your credibility - have you gained anything at all?