Reynolds Wins

O.k., I give up. When somebody is willing to accept arguments like these without even mentioning their glaring shortcomings, there's no reason to engage with them. And, eventually, the sheer volume of fallacious reasoning, half-truths and red herrings just overwhelms you.

I've got a proposition for the right: if you really believe this crap, let's have a real investigation. I actually think that expert commissions made up of political independents should be put together to produce analyses of issues like this. Instead of wasting our breath/electrons, let's pony up and pay some intelligent people who don't have a dog in this fight to evaluate the arguments on each side. I'd suggest including some academicians and political scholars from other countries, too, to insure neutrality. They'd probably have to be native English-speakers to insure they understand all the linguistic nuances involved, but maybe not. I'm a measly philosophy prof (the humanities traditionally having the lowest of all salaries) at a university notorious for under-paying its faculty, but I'd give a LOT of money to support a truly independent investigation.

If a truly independent commission finds that the administration acted in a responsible manner with regard to making the public case for war, I'll eat my words and accept their findings. But I'm just about done wasting my valuable life trying to reason with people who are clinging desperately to every last straw that floats their way.

And if the right is so convinced of their case, why are they opposing an investigation? They know that they'd have an inherent advantage if there was a legislative inquiry. There'd be a 50/50 make-up, and it'd virtually have to come out with a watery conclusion. They've got the home-court advantage. The fact that they're scared even of this speaks volumes.