"To be a liberal (or a libertarian) is to not think."

Conversely, to be a fascist is to anoint the State with the task of thinking for one . . .

I, for one, have thought much about the preservation of a belief in right and wrong; of a sense of which is which; and of a willingness (myself and two sons) to defend one's decisions.

As usual, I find you attacking anything which you do not understand, rather than arguing substantively a chosen position - ANY chosen position - and substituting inaccurate anecdote and derogation for tightly reasoned attack or defense.

At issue here is the simple matter of difference of opinion as to what is absolute, arbitrary Right, and what is Wrong. Neither side need be brain-dead for such difference to exist; and to
call names hardly seems likely to resolve the difference, although it may steel the resolve of each side.

Sorry - just HAD to post that one twice; if you have the means, feel free to delete one copy!

Fixed it.

But this was NOT a post on what is right or wrong. It was about how certain people (as far as I have observed) refuse to think about certain questions. I am glad you are not among them.

Nor did I attack anyone's position (though one can easily infer that I do not approve). I'm only discussing the refusal to think clearly.

I'm not likely to "argue substantively" about moral laws because that is beyond the scope of this blog--I'm not a preacher or a Christian apologist.

I don't want to interrupt the conversation I hope occurs here with John and Conley, but I have to mention that this quote just floors me:

Murray complains that the law against assisted suicide is supported by a “religious minority” who hold to an outdated moral view that human life is inherently valuable

Wow...just - wow.

Well, if human life is so worthless, why are progressives like this woman always moaning on about the rights of minoroties and how awful the bad hegemonic West is for victimizing the third world, etc.?

PS: if I were here parents, I would so be cutting her out of the will right now.

Minorities of fashionable skin color and cute "cultural ceremonies" (which of course are not "religious" because we all know that the only Real, and therefore Bad, religions are Judaism and Christianity), that is.

John,

Methinks you're painting with waaaay too broad a brush when you include libertarians as people who "won't think".

Liberals (in the 20th Century sense of the word) are like totalitarians-- they're quite content to let "the government/authority-figures/Big Brother" do their thinking for them.

Libertarians (or, if you prefer, 19th Century liberals), because they actually have more than two brain cells to rub together, generally have though things through at least enough to realize that worship of the state or of authority (as the Liberals are wont to do) leads only to tyranny and misery (as your liberal friends are finding out, and are utterly clueless as to why).

In any case, morals are a renewable resource, if you are in the habit of thinking things through and figuring out what went wrong and how, and making the necessary corrections. But, as you have pointed out, Liberals aren't in the habit of thinking, and so their stock of "moral fiber" is less abundant than it could be.

I cannot speak authoritatively for Murray's depth of thought as to future rejections of some parts of HER moral conclusions - so I will not.

I will, however, support her determination to "end her own life when she becomes a burden to those around her.” That is one of the core items in my own moral code - that *I* shall make that determination, and no Bungles need cut short their vacations to rush back and sign any Schiavo bills on my behalf: I plan to avoid giving them any such opportunity. Perhaps my sons will toss that determination, when they are deciding which of my values they are to preserve for their sons - perhaps that will be one they keep, and instead toss my adamant opposition to all things Bush-y, since they have seen him and Cheney and Alito and Roberts and Thomas and Scalia, impeached, convicted, indicted, convicted, imprisoned, and properly punished for betrayal of this nation.

I guess Right and Wrong may NEED to evolve as new information is received, including the results of previous generations' success with their own code(s). BUT - I will bet that not even at the thousandth generation, will any of my decendants ever allow anyone to force belief in a specific deity, or specific rituals of worship - such as including "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. My parents refused to allow the Meadow Bridge Schools (W.Va.) to force that recitation 50+ years ago, and I am active in opposition to it now.

So, perhaps what you deem "refuse to think", is more properly titled, "refuse to agree with me"?

Hale,

I must admit I stuck libertarians in there mostly to see who would say ouch! But I think there's some truth in it----I'm thinking of those libertarians who want to repeal laws on drugs or prostitution or such, and say that markets or choice will take care of problems. Whether that's true or not (and leaving aside the question of actual right or wrong), I think they are evading (as far as I'm aware) the kind of questions I was posing.

I don't think the very true point that "worship of the state or of authority...leads only to tyranny and misery" addreses my point.

"morals are a renewable resource, if you are in the habit of thinking things through and figuring out what went wrong and how, and making the necessary corrections." Maybe so, but I have not encountered a convincing argument for this.

Conley,

I'd say you are thinking about these questions in general, but not about the specific point I was making.

You yourself have clearly dropped part of the morality of past generations. So what happens if each generation drops some more? Where does the process end? That's the question I'm pondering.

Suppose your sons decide to end your life because you are a burden? And your grandsons decide to end their father's lives because they are bored with old people?

I'm not saying this will happen, but it is a question that is raised when people start discarding things. And I don't see any of the discarders coming up with answers...

Hale,
Update to my comment above: "morals are a renewable resource, if you are in the habit of thinking things through and figuring out what went wrong and how, and making the necessary corrections." Actually, this IS thinking about the exact question I was raising. I should have seen that.

Got any examples, or details?

Actually, I can think of an example. (Four comments in a row. What a blabbermouth I am suddenly)

American young people today are, statistically, more moral than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Rates for teen pregnancy/sex/drug use have all dropped significantly, as has support for abortion among young people.

Possibly this is an example of morality being regained as a result of mistakes made. Possibly it is something else.

Another example - from my experience, Catholic seminarians are generally far more conservative than their seminary faculty. I'm not saying conservative = moral, by any means - I'm just saying that the process can evolve in both directions.

Conley, regarding this comment:
since they have seen him and Cheney and Alito and Roberts and Thomas and Scalia, impeached, convicted, indicted, convicted, imprisoned, and properly punished for betrayal of this nation.

...I can see an argument for saying Bush or Cheney have betrayed their country. I'd disagree, but I can see the argument. But Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia - impeached and convicted? For what, exactly? For disagreeing with your opinions? Really?

Imprisoned? Honest? Is this just hyperbole, or are you honestly in favor of imprisoning those whose views differ from your own?

Why do I hear the echo of Zoomie in "Conley T. Gwinn's" comments?

John Weidner:

Indeed, I HAVE dropped some of the "moral" positions of prior generations: depending on how far back you wish to go, I see no "wrong" in eating pork (especially since we figured out how to cook it properly); I would rather we not have public stonings for adultery, even though I *might* believe adultery to be "wrong".

The things that worked, I pretty much retain: as you appear to do, in some of your posts, I believe in hitting so hard when forced to hit at all, that I convince the cause of my needing to strike, that it was not a good idea. However, I usually refrain from striking out, if other means to deal with a problem seem viable.

Mostly, though, I fairly and fully reflect the morality of my immediate parents, as it was communicated to me: do no spontaneous harm to others, defend what is yours, and mind your OWN d**n business to the absolute exclusion of caring whether the neighbor sleeps with another of the same gender or his sheep. While I might be averse to either for myself, the judgement of "right" or "wrong" is not mine to make for that neighbor, so long as only consenting adults are involved (OK, the sheep *might* register ineffective objection . . . )

The point, however, is that CHANGE in "morality" of either individuals or the society which endows those morals, is not per se a DECLINE in morality: we toss out some parts of the morals handed to us by our predecessors, but often add back something to compensate for experiences which they could never even have comprehended. Then, we boil the whole down to capsule form, to pass along to our children. We trust that they will adapt where necessary, adopt what (still) works, and add dimension that WE could never know. Some of that process occurs in each of us, as we evaluate our lives, whether or not we do that evaluation with specific intellection directed toward construction of a "moral" edifice with which to bequeath our children.

Whether or not "she" has framed the question as YOU have framed it ("Has she given any thought to the likelihood that her children will toss overboard another 10%? And her grandchildren likewise? Any thought as to where this may be leading? Whether the process has an end?...") is only relevant to a sense of loss that you evidence, when confronted with change??

More pertinent, perhaps: "Does she occasionally reflect on the validity of her chosen moral strictures, adjusting them from time to time, seeking some essence that might be easier, or more durable than "10 rules", or at least more general?" "Does she measure herself against the scale of her chosen moral code - and, if unhappy with the result, does she amend her behavior?"

All I am saying, is that the question you have asked, while valid for you, may not define the issue for another, DIFFERENT, person.

Some other issues you raised seem a diversion from this post, so I may be back with more . . .

Andrea Harris:

Who is "Zoomie"? The tenor of the comparison persuades me that I won't like the answer, but - I gotta ask . . .

John Weidner:

Should my son's developed moral code allow for blowing the old man away when he becomes inconvenient, the only worthwhile observation I could offer would be "D**n it, the capsule I wrote for him (spontaneous harm to another) obviously didn't take! I wonder if that was because I wrote a poor capsule, or is the underlying principal invalid?" My presumption remains that adoption and adaptation of moral codes is - MUST be - strictly a personal process, and continues so long as the individual lives. So if *I* am convinced that it would be "wrong" to off the old man, yet my sons choose differently, then either I did a poor job of communicating the basic concept, or that concept is not valid (whether intrinsically, or due to learning to cook the pork completely).

Every single one of those listed for impeachment and conviction, with subsequent criminal prosecution, has demonstrably lied to Congress - the four Justices while under oath - and although you might sympathize, that IS a crime.
So, imprisonment is a logical outcome, if convicted. Hyperbole would be if my baser instincts toward those deceits were expressed in a resort to a short rope and a tall tree.

As for disagreeing with me, although not codified, that SHOULD be a capital crime, don't ya think?

OK, I'll bite...what were the various Supreme's demonstrable lies before congress?

Ethan Hahn:

Alito - Vanguard - promised to recuse, then didn't

Thomas - Anita Hill; told Congress that he had "never even discussed Roe v. Wade much less formed an opinion on it" - but two weeks after confirmation, reassured paying conservative audience that he had "long held Roe was wrongly decided, and should be overturned"

Roberts - Lied about role in formulation of Reagan Admin policy on Sex Discrimination (Title IX - "it would cost too much"),
Voting Rights (incidental discrimination is allowed so long as discrimination is not the sole purpose;
INTENT to discriminate must be proved in order for the Federal Government to intervene),
Public School Access/immigrant's children (Plyler v. Doe).
In these three instances, the attempt to hide Roberts' writings from Congress failed, and rather than merely putting the best face upon the Administration's position as he stated to Congress, Roberts is seen lobbying with varying success to CREATE the objectionable policies.
"all those essays and memos are just attempts to make the best possible case for a client, and do not represent my personal opinion, which I could only provide as informed by the facts of the individual case"

"I cannot answer any of your questions about past decisions because these issues could come before the court during my term" as though Bush v. Gore, one of the cases questioned, could be revisited any day, despite its designation by the Court as unique and non-precedential.

Although in his hearing for confirmation as Chief Justice, he denied prejudgement of Roe, in 1992, Roberts had in another confirmation hearing, echoed the Thomas line "Roe was wrong(fully) decided, and should be over(ruled)."

Scalia - skated to confirmation 98-0, so the questioning wasn't intense - BUT - Scalia went on record as "refusing to engage in results-oriented judging"; in Bush v. Gore, that is exactly what he produced, advancing arguments which he had caustically derided in other cases, because those were the sole means to his desired verdict.

Moreover, his morals are eminently impeachable: accepted accomodations and a hunting trip from a Kansas law school in 2002, two weeks after hearing two cases in which the dean was a lead attorney; refused to recuse, refused to cancel the trip; accepted travel and accomodation for himself and child from Cheney, and went hunting with his good friend, in the interval between agreeing to hear an appeal of a decision against the VP, and the hearing; refused to recuse.
Federal law does provide that any justice shall recuse in any proceeding in which impartiality might be questioned.

Well, starting with Alito...can we agree that a) his recusal was not in any way required by current case law or practice, b) his investments had no relevance to his decision in that case, c) his decision could in no way impact him financially, d) he immediately recused himself when the plaintiff requested he do so despite there being no need to, e) his decision in the case was agreed with unanimously on review, and f) even if there were a legal conflict of interest, his immediate recusal when it was brought up was reasonable and sufficient? And furthermore, that actual conflicts (for example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg participated in cases involving companies her husband owned stock in), when they occur, are handled similarly? There was no actual ethical violation, even if the facts are contorted...

But your "imprisoned" contention isn't for ethical violations, it's for lying to congress in his 1990 questionaire.

Here's Alito's quote from that questionaire:

I do not believe that conflicts of interest relating to my financial interests are likely to arise. I would, however, disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies, the brokerage firm of Smith Barney, or the First Federal Savings & Loan of Rochester, New York.

I would disqualify myself from any case involving my sister's law firm, Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, of Newark, New Jersey.

Here's Ronald Rotunda's comments on the "he lied" argument in his letter to the Judiciary Committee during the hearings:

It is not reasonable to argue that, in 1990, Judicial Nominee Alito was "promising" never to hear a case involving Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, or Vanguard, no matter what was the state of the law or the facts in the ensuing years. His 1990 statement, in context, can only mean that based on the law and the facts at the time as he understood them, he would -- out of an overabundance of caution -- not hear cases involving Smith Barney, Vanguard, or the law firm of Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey. If the facts or the law would change, then the result would change. For example, if his sister no longer was working at Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, then he would no longer disqualify himself from hearing cases from that firm.

Now, is all of that as convincing as everyone might like? Ought Alito to have recused himself to avoid the issue entirely, despite changing case law, an obvious absence of any conflict of interest, etc., etc.? Perhaps.

But you said he should be impeached, convicted and imprisoned.

I'm sorry, sir, but you are insane. Thanks for coming out to play, but I've got to go rejoin the real world now.

Ethan Hahn:

It would be a convenient excuse to "rejoin the real world", to avoid the FACTS of Alito's behavior. However, I insist upon stating a few of those facts regardless.

1. I do not agree: a,b,c,d,e and f.

Two things in particular:

(d)Far from "immediately recused himself" when plaintiff charged conflict of interest, Alito paused long enough to assail plaintiff for questioning his integrity, then vacated his decision, complaining bitterly in the right-wing press for months; and if she had not caught him, what then? "State Secrets", again, I suppose?

(f)"reasonable and sufficient" would have been to recuse in a case proposing legal fees and potential loss for "his" mutual fund provider - which, by the way, continues to have legal problems a decade later due to consistent efforts to prevent withdrawal of funds - despite Alito's attempt to cover Vanguard with a fresh coat of legal paint.

There are, of course several other failures to recuse AS PROMISED, caught only after the fact, after the decision(s), two involving OTHER financial interests in which he had promised recusal.

Then there is the infamous 1985 "CAP" membership, and subsequent lies and deceits derived therefrom.

However, maybe I missed something, and the change in law you keep talking about has to do with dropping the law against lying to Congress?
Musta happened after Clinton, though, because I
sorta remember that being in the bill of impeachment?

But even if I were - don't get so excited, that is subjuctive, an hypothetical - to concede that Alito is a borderline case for impeachment, what of the others?

Of course I MEANT "subjunctive", but the cursor got in the way, blocked my view, distracted me . . .
You know, like Alito when "the bell didn't go off" on Vanguard?

Look, you may enjoy spending your time making absurd and obscene accusations against those with whom you disagree politically, using cursory assertions that masquerade as arguments, but it's honestly not that rewarding an experience for others. But despite my better judgement...

Point 1: I trust you're agitating for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's impeachment and imprisonment as well, right?

Point 2: Was Alito's ruling unanimously concurred with when it was next heard?

Point 3: If you're going to attempt being a smart-ass, at least get your facts straight. The Bill of Impeachment against Clinton was for Perjury before a Grand Jury and for Obstruction of Justice; two counts that were brought before the House and failed to pass were a second Perjury count and Abuse of Power. Nothing about lying to Congress. I understand your underlying snark, and actually I agree - lying under oath is a serious thing. I didn't like the tactics of the Republicans during the impeachment debacle, and was a Clinton supporter - but I could never support him whole-heartedly, because lying under oath is serious business. But when you snark and are plain wrong, it completely undercuts an otherwise useful snark.

Point 4: The questionnaire was asking how he'd handle conflicts of interest. He said he'd follow the Canons from the Code of Judicial Conduct, and gave a few examples. Twelve years later, a case presented itself where his participation did not violate those canons, but that did involve one of his examples. And you're arguing that he should sit in prison for this. Does this not strike you as a tad overzealous?

And a question - are all of your assertions based in this same sort of ticky-tack hypertechnical interpretation of contortions of facts? Because if so, I honestly have better things to do.

Ethan Hahn:

SOOOO much better without the ad hominen!
You know, those "cursory assertions" of yours that I am "insane".

No, I am not agitating for Justice Ginsburg's impeachment -but that is a little off-topic for now, so I will not divert the thread further than we have already done; AND I get to deprive you of the amusement contained in that discussion.

As to Alito: Clearly he lied as to his intentions, then lied further in the attempts to find an alibi when plaintiff challenged him; added a layer of lies during the confirmation hearings for Associate Justice, then had to amend those lies as he kept sticking his foot into the same pile of poo-poo. The underlying act was not prosecutable, for his bias in favor of the defendant neither can be proved, nor shown to have at all influenced either his or the ultimate decision. It is just the pattern of telling the initial committee whatever they needed to hear, without any intent to do as he promised - then repeatedly reinventing the alibi whereby he was not responsible for failing to meet that promise - THAT is a lie, and should be prosecuted.

CAP? Well, again Alito repeatedly contradicts himself - doesn't remember anything - stuck it in there as a hook for a "CAP-ish" administration - (ooops, that would mean I DO remember it) - couldn't very well lie on a job app - on, and on, and on . . .
THAT is a lie, and might be prosecuted.

OK, so I threw in a little snark, without even concern for the facts of the Clinton impeachment - so, I 'fess up, move on, and THAT is what Alito should have done:
"Gosh, I screwed up - let ME vacate my decision, and we will get another panel to hear this". Instead, the decision was vacated by another judge, rancorous sounds were emitted by Alito toward the plaintiff, the whole matter was brought before the Confirmation hearing (memory says Leahy?) and Alito proceeded to tell the fourth different version of the his alibi.

One more confession: I might better tolerate these crimes if I were more attuned to the political stance of the criminals - but I trust fully the Ugly Repugnants to ensure that no deed - good or bad or omitted - by any of my reps will go unassailed.

The more you write, the more you remind me of my brother - he's a lefty extrodinaire, and other than my grandpa and my dad, there's nobody in the world I'd rather be. So you'll pardon me if my initial venom is dulling, and I get more and more endeared to you...it's my admiration and love for my brother that's talking, not me!

Given that, and given your further explanations, I'm happy to back away from the "insane" comment, and apologize for it. I'd amend it to saying that your post was a pack of inane, disconnected assertions, without citation, logic, or developed argument. I hope you'll pardon me if I inferred that the post reflected on the poster!

(Wow...sorry about that...apparently some venom still abides...)

To the facts at hand...can you explain what about the Alito situation makes it "clear" that he lied about his intentions? I think the text of the questionaire makes it clear that he's avowing his intention to avoid anything prohibited by the Canons in the Code of Judicial Conduct. Which avoidance he accomplished. And even if your mind-reading abilities convince you of his intentions, is it fair to say that, beyond a reasonable doubt, Alito should go to jail for this?

You made a blanket assertion in your initial post, then when asked for a reason, you cited this instance. I took the first accusation in your post, read up on it, and found it to be more than flimsy. Ah, you say, well then if that won't do, then let's go after him for some other lie I assert he told!

You'll understand if I get the feeling that this line of debate is unlikely to be persuasive to either of us...

Do you by chance have your own blog? I feel bad about drawing John's blog way, way off course, and additionally, due to spam-bots, John's had to limit commenting on Random Jottings to 10 days. I honestly do have a lot of other stuff going on that makes replying in a timely fashion difficult, and I get the feeling (if you're anything like my brother) that this discussion, and others you've spawned elsewhere, could go on for quite some time...

Ethan Hahn:

Don't have my own blog - I just stumbled across this one en route from C&L to Media Matters (I think I clicked a link to an interesting item, as a background transaction to opening MM) and was intrigued and moved to reply by the posting I encountered. Now I am SURE no one here minds reading "the other side" of the uncited unsupported assertions that run rampant across this - as an example, the closing line of this very thread:
"To be a liberal (or a libertarian) is to not think."

Initially, I dealt solely from memory on Alito - and mine is not always complete, although rarely backwards on issues that inflamned me at the time encountered. So the transcripts, if produced, will in fact show shifting alibis within the hearing (just as I have detailed them);
and the record is clear as to the Bush-y/Rov-ian "WMD - no, well attempted WMD - no, well the War On Terror - no, well, to remove a threatening despot and bring democracy to the region . . . " seance that Alito underwent as he kept getting caught unable to explain his failed promise. I don't expect you to believe me - I guess that is why (although I remain confident that my facts are uncontorted, and even re-read some of the source for verification) I will not provide links at this time. Indeed, I would bet that many of the items are not currently available on the web, and I lack access to Lexis, but, if you REALLY want some of the information, I do have most of it in .pdf files, and would cheerfully email it.

As to the post in question, it purported to be nothing other than a skim of the causes for impeachment, since that is what you asked for
(presumably to verify that I was serious).
NOW I see you really wanted a Circuit Court decision, complete with footnotes and endnotes. Well, if the Congress changes, I may well pitch in on the creation of various Bills of Impeachment, and the decision will eventually land on the web for you to see. We will have to be careful as to the sequence of the impeachments, though - if we start with Cheney (again, lied to Congress) then BUSH (lied to Congress)would be President.

I wasn't looking for a peer-reviewed research paper. But you have to admit, when you claim Alito should rot in prison, are asked for reasons, then your argument is, in total, "Alito - Vanguard - promised to recuse, then didn't", and then upon reading up on it I find it to be, at best, a remarkably overzealous interpretation of events - that perhaps my desire for something with a touch more substance isn't exactly out of line?

And now, the old WMD song...really, if you believe a) there were no WMD's in Iraq, b) there had to be stockpiles of WMD's for Saddam to have violated the UN resolutions, c) the fact that he fired on our pilots daily wasn't sufficient legal grounds for invasion, and d) that the whole concept of trying to bring freedom/prosperity was just some BS cover - then we really don't have any common ground.

As an aside, I often disagree with John. His statement that "To be a liberal (or a libertarian) is to not think" is, to my mind, false on its face. But I've read him for, oh jeez, four years now? I know he can use hyperbole to illustrate a logical disconnect. If he were president and I were his speechwriter, I'd counsel him not to use that phrase - but the point of this thread was him hashing out what he thinks is a logical flaw in this woman's thinking, and one that maybe we readers hadn't yet considered. Was it optimally constructed? Nope. Do I come here, and keep coming back, because John's thoughts will always be optimally constructed? Of course not. I read him because a) he's a good writer, b) he thinks about the issues in interesting ways, and c) his varied interests strike my fancy. Oh, and d) he's happy to substantively engage in a back-n-forth.

I actually disagree with John on a fairly regular basis. I'm not of the opinion that religious belief is a necessary precondition for a healthy society. It wouldn't bother me if the FCC's obscenity laws were striken from the books tomorrow. I've argued vociferously in favor of gay marriage. I dig the free market, but I also dig social security as it is (though I think some of Bush's ideas are worth trying).

Point is, I don't feel the need to take John to task every time he writes something that plays a little off-key to me. I'm not about to apologize for that. And that's especially true when I know the objectionable line is an exaggerated expression of exasperation - jumping up and down every time I suspect he may have used hyperbole would be nothing more than tedium.

Thinking about it, the only two single authors of whom I've read more are probably Charlotte Bronte and George Eliot. You'll forgive me if I feel more comfortable that I understand his underlying assumptions than some random guy who claims Bush, Cheney and the four Supreme Court Justices (whom he just happens to disagree with most) ought to be thrown in prison...

Ethan Hahn:

It is all good . . .

I didn't even toss a stone at Mr. Weidner, but only offered an example (me) of a liberal who had dedicated serious thought to the issue of right and wrong and their relationship to morality, the constant evolution of my OWN internal sense of right and wrong, and the passage of one's condensed nugget of wisdom to the next generation - with a clear understanding (at least *I* understand) that acceptance of all or part thereof is conditional and voluntary by the recipient.

I found the discussion, even the off-topic developments, interesting as much for forcing me to review some aspects of what I had meant as merely an offhand signpost (sincerely felt, but irrelevant to issues at hard) of the extent of my regard for the respective Justices, and even appreciated your prodding me to review the reasons for conclusions closed last year, even last decade. Yeah, I still reach the same conclusion - admittedly NOT a mainstream conclusion - regarding the probity of the evidence of lies under oath, by each of the four Justices I have unofficially indicted; and likely will again if I review this a decade from now. I further recognize that once you have weighed the evidence of WMDs in Iraq, whether you were able to FIND any, or not, you are unlikely to be persuaded that the whole thing was a conspiracy awaiting an opportunity for implementation, regardless of my argument.

So, it is all good . . .