I think you may have missed my point, sir. The documents "floated" in the Rather case were forged in form but were apparently, according to witnesses involved, accurate as to content.

My point about the emerging documents is not that they should be discredited or ignored, if they are genuine and accurate, but that trying to use them retroactively to justify an invasion that occurred before they were known about when their information was not known would be meretricious and illogical. Because, you see, if Bush knew about any of them, and they supported his decisions to wage war, he surely woudl have used them in defense considering all the uproar that was raised against his invasion of Iraq and since.

I am curious that you use the word "peace monger" as a parallel construction to the term war-monger, which is often used as a term of censure.

Is it your belief that those who wage peace, or promote peace, are somehow doing a disservice? Is peace in some way a condition you think is bad for the nation?   In other words, what do you have against peace-mongering that you would use this peculiar turn of phrase to refer to it?

A