Thanks Mary Anne.

I know of no "liberal" who would prefer that Saddam remained in power. That isn't why both liberals and conservatives are asking hard questions about what the administration knew or didn't know about Iraq's ephemeral "weapons of mass destruction."

If the case for Iraqi WMD's was willfully exaggerated to motivate public opinion to support a preemptive war, that, in of of itself, is wrong and unethical, perhaps even immoral. A democracy depends upon its leaders to tell their citizens the truth. If a desired public policy, in this case going to war, cannot hold in the face of such truth, so be it - that's what democracy is all about.

The people of this nation were told that their lives and well-being were being threatened by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda. Neither of these things appears to be true. In fact, given the exhilarating pace of the war, it doesn't appear that Iraq posed any threat whatsoever to the people of this nation. Saddam was a two-bit dictator who preferred spending his oil money on family palaces rather than a military infratstructure that had long since evaporated.

Having made the case so emphatically, our international reputation is on the line. A couple of mobile labs with questionable purposes won't salvage it. How will the world respond next time we make such claims? Recall what happened to the boy who cried wolf.

"Better than Saddam" is a low standard indeed, but its consistent with the politics of matching lowered expectations that so characterize the current administration.

Regards,
Donald