As I see it, Lowry’s entire argument boils down to a single point: "For the Bush administration, Sept. 11 meant erring on the side of safety."

So this is the rationale we are supposed to use in the future, when deciding whether or not to go to war with a foreign nation --- that they MIGHT pose a threat at some point in the future?

Try again, Mr. Lowry.

"The U.S. should strike [Iraq], strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance, the administration needs to act sooner rather than later." --Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-West Virginia (Nov. 14, 1998)

"Earlier today I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces, their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the middle east and around the world." -- President Clinton, December 16, 1998

"Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations." -- U.N. Resolution 1441

"Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;"

-- Congressional Joint Resolution to Authorize Use of Force Against Iraq

"Moving the nation closer to a possible second war with Iraq, 77 of 100 senators and 296 of 435 House members voted to authorize the president to ’use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.’ " -- Washington Post, Oct. 11, 2002

I don’t think the Bush administration lied, or attempted to decieve the world anymore than I think Dianne Feinstein, John D. Rockefeller, Evan Bayh, John Edwards, or the rest of the folks on the Senate Intelligence Committee (who got the same information on Iraq’s WMD that Bush did), or a majority of Democratic memmbers of Congress, or Bill Clinton and Robert Byrd, or all the members of the U.N. Security Council are part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" to decieve the American people, and indeed the world, about why we took Saddam out.

Does anybody else out there think this?

In agreeing with Marc Lamb, I just want to say that I think those who are trying to say that Bush and his people lied will have a tough time. They will spin their wheels, and take time away from better conversations, like for example, what, if anything should happen with Iran.

Actually, it’s not my contention that anyone lied about WMD, nor is it my contention that only Republicans were wrong to support the war. Anyone (Republicans or Democrats) who supported the war on the basis of disarming Saddam of WMD dropped the ball here. Some folks will come out and admit that they were wrong (indeed, some already have). Others will backpeddle and explore every possible means of avoiding admitting error. Mr. Lowry, with his finger pointing and "it all worked out in the end" attitude, represents the worst of the latter group of folks.

On the topic of admitting wrong, it seems to me that somebody here on this very blog spent a great amount of time espousing the merits of saying "I was wrong" every now and then. So I ask, where is that spirit now?

By a stroke of prepared luck, we finally nabbed that guy, believed to have bombed the ’96 Olympics and an abortion clinic. How many years has this guy been at the top of the FBI’s "most wanted" list?

And he was hiding out in the hills of North Carolina, right here in our own back yard!

No we haven’t found Osama, nor have we nabbed Saddam; we’re still fighting Al Qaeda, and we’re still looking for weapons of mass destruction. I hear tell you can put a lot of leathal anthrax in a zip-lock baggie.

In the meantime, we’ve no choice but to keep looking.

In the meantime, we’ve no choice but to keep looking.

And OJ Simpson is still looking for his ex-wife’s killer.

Hey, as long as we’re on the topic of coming clean about some things...