Sorry Teribus - a slip of the pen. Where I said "Teribus knows that Cheney never alleged direct Al Qaeda involvement in 911...." I meant to say "Iraq" instead of "Al Qaeda." I realise it makes a significant difference! Anyway, I stand by what I meant to say.... (in its context, that is; not as quoted in isolation here).

I think in replying to me, you've rather lost track of what you said in your earlier post.

For instance, you quoted Bobert as saying: "First we invade Iraq because it was going to drop a nuclear warhead on us," and make this response: With Bobert, attention to detail and fact are not strong suits. The statement made by him above is not correct.

Bobert then justified his statement by recalling Condi's reference to a mushroom cloud. In my view you haven't dealt with that - ie you haven't explained why his statement had been "not correct."

Your first post suggested to me that you were subjectively clinging to very small points. Thus Bobert's statement that "we invade Iraq .... because they have WMDs" is in your book only "almost correct" - the weakness in his argument apparently being that the information about WMD came from the UN. Yet where the WMD spectre came from has no bearing on whether Bobert was right or wrong. (Incidentally, Colin Powell's presentation to the UN included intelligence that did NOT come from UN reports.)

Sometimes, Teribus, your posts are well informed and objective and though I would often dispute the analysis I appreciate their factual content. I didn't think your first post in this thread was in that category, hence I called it uncharacterisic.