[PornoDoggy]

A legal defense is often built on a series of arguements - my client didn't do the crime, but if he did do the crime he didn't know it was a crime, and if he did know it was a crime he was provoked to do it, and if he wasn't provoked to do it do it his mother made him do it.

There have been enough arguements presented to various and sundry arguements by the Bushites and their bobble-headed chorus to have virtually all the bases covered regardless of what any conclusions any investigation uncovers.

The rite-thinkin 'merikins will probably flat out state that deception was justified since beloved leader knows what's best for their narrow-minded version of 'merika and their 19th century outlook on international relations.

The folks with the "Bonanza" mentality (everybody either wears a black hat or a white hat) will still fail to understand that one can question the honesty of the reasons for the war in Iraq without being a terrorist-hugger.

The in-ty-lektuls will post logically-flawed disertations that really contain nothing than the above, with some clever ways of calling anyone who disagrees with the party line whiners, or who lack the life experiences to understand the reasons that it was necessary for the emporor to declare his suit the grandest in the land.

The pseudopithy will simply insult the "GFY-like" intelligence of anyone not spouting the arguement dujour offered in justification of the war with a GFY-style personal attack.