Is Mr. Kinsley trying to say U.S. policy during the Clinton administration didn't advocate Iraq was either (a) pursuing weapons and/or (b) already possessed weapons? That would indeed be a revisionist view of history.

I do think it's interesting, in a historical context, by which we judge our conflicts. We've lost roughly 2,000 soldiers in this conflict. This number is absolutely NOTHING in the grand scheme, especially considering the task of toppling a government, becoming an occupying force, and attempting to instill some semblence of a strong, central government in a region where tribal factions, ethnic divisions, and religious rule runs deep.

"This number is absolutely NOTHING in the grand scheme, especially considering the task of toppling a government, becoming an occupying force..."

The number 2,000. Do you have a loved one who has died in the war?

Try telling the parents, the brother or sister of a soldier who has been sacrificed in war that was based on falsified intelligence reports that the death of their child or sibling was insignificant.

Anyway, the siege of Baghdad was a joke. There was virtually NO resistance - no return fire. The tanks rolled in and parked, that was it - end of story. I think the only American casualty during the drive to Baghdad was when a truck ran off the road. Saddam had instructed the Iraqi's not to fight.

That is right - the war was based on falsified and fabricated intelligence. The planners knew very well that WMD was a non-starter. They went to war anyway. The real motives for this war are to establish American military presence in the region, so as to project geographical dominance and to secure access to the oil of the Iraqis.

Essentially, the war is illegal - without even bringing ethics into the debate.

Is it respectful, or justifiable to allow American and Allied soldiers, and the Iraqi people - to continue to die in a war that was not based on a noble cause?