I think it's more a demonstration of the benefits that education and research can provide to an argument.

Those historical facts are available to anyone with the energy and commonsense to sit down to Google, enter the words, "in god we trust", and then wait 15 seconds. So, because I will actually take the effort to do some research, I have opinions that are at least partly based on fact. Unlike the Bush groupies, who cannot be troubled to think for themselves, and have Rush Limbaugh do it for them.

I always chuckle when ditto-heads slam me in these forums as being liberal. It's nearly a 100% indicator that they are poorly educated on the issue at hand. It always happens just like this: produce facts that indicate that their position is illogical, and BOOM, I'm a commie. Oh, well, I guess 25 years of being a registered republican and a life member of the NRA don't mean what they used to...

Winston Churchill was once taken to task by another member of parliament for changing his position on an issue. "Sir," Churchill harrumphed, "when I encounter facts that indicate that my prior position was wrong, I change my opinion. What do you do?"

In the current debate around weapons of mass destruction, we are talking about what our government does when the data does not support their position. We are also talking about what we do as a people, if and when it appears that our data about our government changes. These are important questions. It is very clear that George W. does not change opinions easily. The question is, is he being a leader, or is he being unwise?

I, for one, wish he listened better and was more thoughtful about these questions.