"The Iraq War thread wasn't even brought into the discussion until YOU brought it up here." You can't even tell the truth about something that happened on this very Xombyte. You challenged my integrity by claiming that I don't cite any sources. I gave you examples of some of my more recent articles, then you claim that I brought up the Iraq discussion? That's quite absurd of you. "The fact that you point fingers at other people and piously claim the high ground while you yourself are responsible for dragging down the discussion in the first place is a well-known and long-understood Publius debating method." Really??? I'm the one responsible for "dragging down the discussion"? Let's review... I left a comment about tobacco, smoking tobacco, and how it relates to other behavior, and also whether or not we ought to be worried about second-hand smoke. Because I chose to leave a comment on mrbronco's Xombyte, I got the following in response from you...judubhub: "Yes, of course, publius, you’re right and the EPA is wrong...Your ego is huge, Publius, but do you really expect us to believe your mere opinion trumps FACTS and scientific research of the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Surgeon General? Well, we all know the answer to that question. You would have us believe that everything that proceedeth out of your mouth is the Gospel truth because it is what YOU believe. I believe we should allow the people who aren't aware of the health effects of secondhand smoke read some actual studies for themselves--as opposed to your dismissive interpretation of them--and decide for themselves." Then when another person challenged you by demonstrating how you did the same thing I did (not citing a source), you decide to lie about me: "However, inasmuch as I didn't cite sources there, my quarrel here is with Publius and his lack of citations over several threads over several months. There is a history here and that has come into play, which makes the point I was making to him a little broader in scope than just this article." So, no...I was not the one who "dragged down the discussion." It was YOU (and you had some help from Les Porter). But let's address the Iraq War part of your argument. You said I brought up the Iraq War discussion. Actually, I didn't "discuss" it at all...I used my Xombytes as an example of how you were wrong when you claimed I don't cite sources. Then you replied with the following: "Mistaking quantity for quality...Yes, yes, I read your treatment of the events that led up to the illegal invasion of Iraq...verbose you are, accurate you are not...I am in the process right now of impeaching your sources and that information...I am not going to do to the reader what you did and lull them to sleep...you say that you put 18 links in your July article without saying that many were impeached by other sources that I and others provided...this simply means that your latest article is largely a rehashing of the same impeached positions...it is important for them to know that your current article does not tell the whole story--it merely maintains that anyone who doesn't believe that everything happened exactly as you say it did is somehow less than intelligent and honest, which is another way of saying that your opinion is somehow better than anyone else's, which is why you come across as a 'right wing know-it-all'." And you go on and on about my article here, instead of making these points where they are relevant. And when I tell you this isn't the place for this debate, you try to pull a fast one and blame me for "bringing it into the discussion." On top of that, you also try to claim that I'm the one "dragging down the discussion." The funniest part is, you refuse to debate the Iraq War topic on my Xombyte that deals with the Iraq War, but you call me the "chickenshit". You gotta love that. But don't worry...I'll have the debate there anyway, whether you choose to partake or not. I think everyone here is aware of your tactics jdubhub. You really can't hide from it when you are caught in your own lies all in the same thread. And you have the nerve to attack my character? So much for having moderators... *If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

I think you've already wasted enough space on mrbronco's Xombyte on something not related to his topic. And while I admire your persistence to make this same failed argument, I don't believe this is the place to do it - especially when you cannot even represent my article correctly. You insist on lying and taking parts of the article completely out of context, then pretend you're able to refute my arguments. Oh, yeah...good luck with "impeaching" my sources too. I'm not sure how you're going to "impeach" transcripts of speeches, U.S. public laws, congressional documents and records, CIA records, the UN Charter and UNSC resolutions, court decisions, and polling data. You're so funny when you're wrong. You know where to find me. This is no longer the place. TRY GOING HERE - if you have the courage to discuss it on my actual Xombyte, of course. Mrbronco...I'm sorry these two insist on trying to disparage me on your Xombyte. But I guess that's what I get for leaving you a comment, right? It must be well deserved. *If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

Yes, yes, I read your treatment of the events that led up to the illegal invasion of Iraq. I cut-and-pasted it so I could print it out and dissect it, which took 17 pages in landscape; verbose you are, accurate you are not. In just a preliminary comparison between your last article and a neutral timeline of events, I can see that you disingenuously left out everything that showed your position in a bad light. Not to worry, I am in the process right now of impeaching your sources and that information, so at least one article in rebuttal will be written. It may end up being as many as five articles because I am not going to do to the reader what you did and lull them to sleep. On the subject of impeaching sources, you say that you put 18 links in your July article without saying that many were impeached by other sources that I and others provided. You never replied to those challenges and slipped away into the night. So, this simply means that your latest article is largely a rehashing of the same impeached positions. While you may want the newer readers to forget that you never replied to old challenges, it is important for them to know that your current article does not tell the whole story--it merely maintains that anyone who doesn't believe that everything happened exactly as you say it did is somehow less than intelligent and honest, which is another way of saying that your opinion is somehow better than anyone else's, which is why you come across as a "right wing know-it-all". Right Wing Know-it-All wrote:Over the past five years, many people have attempted to change the historical record, accuse the Bush administration of acting illegally, and fill the the heads of the uneducated and uninformed with tall tales about our motives for removing Saddam Hussein's regime. Analysis of quote: Many people challenge the official story of the Iraq invasion of 2003, including serving and retired military officers, historians of different nationalities, citizens of nearly every member of the United Nations, the American government, politicians of every party and position, and anyone else who has considered ALL the facts (read: those who were not content with being told what to think and actually looked at the underlying motives). The Bush Administration has acted illegally by ignoring international law and twisting the language of UNSC 1441 to rationalize an invasion that would have gone forward with or without UN approval. I find it interesting, Publius, that you claim to be a champion of international justice and law, yet you take the position that France, Russia, and "possibly" China ought to be expelled from the UN Security Council because those nations had the brass to stand up to the bully and not give license to Bush's illegal invasion. The only way that justice will work in the world is if people will agree to disagree and not impose naked military aggression against other countries without laying out ALL THE REASONS WHY. Bush didn't which is why his invasion of Iraq was illegal on its face. Before you get your undies in a wad over the past couple of paragraphs, Publius, I will have a supported dissection and analysis of the key points of your article, Why We Are In Iraq, sometime this week. You can complain all you want about my position, but your position is unsustainable without some glaring omissions in the true historical record. Correcting what you've disingenuously omitted will be the focus of my reply. DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?