"Your entire pre-emption doctrine depends on the ability of the United States to gather accurate intelligence and make honest assessments," Waxman wrote. "The matter raises fundamental issues that cannot be ignored."

Waxman's observation sums up nicely in two sentences why I was bothered by WMD as a pretext for preemption before the war, and why I'm bothered by the lack of WMD found after the war.

Bush and the Regimes were way too cavalier about breezily declaring war on Iraq based on murky innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations. I demanded better evidence then, and it's becoming clear now that I was correct to criticize the shaky rationale for the war.

A doctrine of preemption is a dangerous thing, and it should be used only in situations of the utmost gravity and upon compelling solid evidence. First time out of the gate and Bush is well on his way to discrediting his shiny new doctrine by demonstrating its potential for abuse. But, seeing as how I think it's a foolish doctrine anyway, maybe I should be grateful we got this out of the way earlier rather than later.

Keep on keepin the issue alive, Don. The conservatives wish this issue would go away, but it can't--it's not partisan politics, it's a vital matter of public policy. It's not about the WMD themselves, it's about Bush policy and its consequences.

Watch 'em dance: "Oh no, no, it wasn't really the WMD, that was a just a bureacratic expediency because otherwise nobody would have supported our war". Can't you just hear the shrill edge of desperation?

--Robert