From my angle, I would say that going into Iraq for the wrong reasons could result in a failure to properly complete the neccesary nation building activity there - activity that - without it... an Invasion would be completely wrongheaded and unjustified.

I happen to think that our fear that Hussein will develop and someday use, or threaten to use, WMD's is both a completely valid and a completely sufficient reason to invade Iraq, because I think the fear is justified. Now if I thought the fear weren't justified, I'd agree with you--it would be precipitous and foolhardy and wrong to launch a war.

There are other reasons for invading that may be valid, but aren't sufficient, such as oil, or even "regime change" for the purpose of helping oppressed Iraqis. But just because they're not sufficient reasons doesn't mean they can't be invoked along with reasons that are sufficient.

Between Reagan and Bush Sr., 5 justices were named to the bench, and Rehnquist was elevated to the Chief Justices seat.

I know that, but mierin's post insinuated that Bush v. Gore was decided because the Justices wanted to repay Bush Sr. for appointing them--which on the face of it is simply wrong. The real point is that we've generally passed the days when Supreme Court Justices are appointed out of a sense of patronage on the part of the President. Johnson (Fortas, Goldberg) and Nixon (Burger, possibly Rehnquist) were really the last Presidents who engaged in that kind of backscratching. Although, come to think of it, President Clinton wanted to appoint George Mitchell, but Mitchell declined. All the names being thrown around as potential Bush nominees are of sitting judges who probably don't even know Bush, albeit Gonzales, who's a White House counsel, has been included in some of those lists.