Tom,

The Washington Post is a reasonable, middle-of-the-road response. The Post supported going to pre-emptive war based upon the presumption that Iraq possessed hundreds of tone of weapons of mass destruction. That they are concerned we haven't found what we claimed Saddam had is also reasonable. You shoud be too instead persistenting in dismissing the seriousness of the problem. I think this excerpt from the Post editorial says it best:

"Yet that hardly means the Bush administration can now play down the question of weapons. It is vital to prevent any such arms from falling into the hands of terrorists or other rogue states. And it is crucial to the administration's ability to tackle the threat of WMD in other rogue states that it show the world proof of Saddam Hussein's arsenal. If U.S. intelligence was wrong, it is important to learn why. If administration officials misused intelligence, that also should be made clear."

As for your affectation regarding Mr. Krugman, I tihnk that was unfortunate and inappropriate. If that's the best you can muster to respond to his scathing critique, your are effectively admitting he's right.

Donald