[Southack]

President Bush has mentioned the torture on several occassions.

Moreover, I see relatively little value in further pandering to the ridiculous "where are the WMD's" crowd simply because they are professional, permanent malcontents. They will either deny evidence of WMD's if given to them, or else they will effortlessly segue to yet another entirely different criticism.

Their goal is to bring down Bush, after all, and their method is perpetual criticism of *everything*.

What we must do is to stay on target, on message, and continue being the adults at the world playground of children states.

[Sabertooth]

Moreover, I see relatively little value in further pandering to the ridiculous "where are the WMD's" crowd simply because they are professional, permanent malcontents.

It's pandering when you appease your opponents, not when you trump their argument.

What we must do is to stay on target, on message, and continue being the adults at the world playground of children states.

The message is that we were in Iraq for a lot more reasons than WMDs. We're off it now, giving the Left what little opening they have to carp about the WoT.

The entire adults/children/malcontents model is specious. There are a lot of ill-informed voters who make their decisions based on soundbites, and there always will be. They are the ones who need to be informed about Saddam's torture state. We need the embeds on the ground in Iraq now, bringing back the vivid video evidence and the inescapable comparisions with Nazism.

The common understanding should be "opposing the war = favoring torture."

Then let the Left and the media chatter to themselves in the corner.