4) Sort of like demanding personal accountability for lies and deception from a Democratic president, but twisting oneself into cognitive pretzels in order to avoid the conclusion that your Republican President has been dishonest.

Nobody has shown that Bush has been dishonest, and believe me, many people have busted their humps trying. Same for Blair. Or maybe you hadn't noticed that the "Bush Lied!" campaign has died quietly down except on the crackpot web sites? And if he was mistaken, based on what the intelligence people told him, he had a lot of company.

3) Kind of like Calling for the blood of a Democratic president when faulty intelligence caused the destruction of a civilian chemical plant in the Sudan, but being a proud supporter of the Republican president who led us into a war of indefinite occupation based on Intelligence that, at the very least, was massively faulty.

I didn't "call for his blood" on this issue, at least not for that reason. For the record, although I am suspicious of his motives regarding timing, I think Clinton honestly believed based on his best evidence that the aspirin factory was, indeed, a weapons factory. And given the skill at "dual use" concealment of WMD programs by some tyrants, I would say the jury is still out on that.

2) Exactly like being deeply concerned at the administrations motives when you find out that the causes of the various Balklands interventions were exaggerated, that the slaughter counts were off by 50-20%, but being dauntlessly supportive when the putative causes for this war appear substantially more over-hyped.

While you do not fall into this category, many liberals still support the Balkans effort for humanitarian reasons, despite the fact that Saddam killed almost ten times the number of people that any Balkan goon ever did. Again, the fact that the genocide was exaggerated did not come to light until after the fact, and I don't recall Clinton losing liberal support because of it.

You want to know why I'm not particularly bothered by the lack of nuclear-tipped warheads found buried in the desert? Saddam had proven WMD programs in the past, up to and including an active nuclear one. Had the first Gulf War not happened, Saddam would be sitting on his own shiny new warheads right now and we wouldn't be having this argument. Even discounting the observational evidence indicating active pursuit of such weapons before the war, the hard evidence we have found to date is at least sufficient to show that Saddam had the intent of resurrecting programs, including nuclear, after the heat was off. I expect more evidence to follow. They announced the capture of "Chemical Ali" today, and maybe something will get settled now either in your favor or mine.

After decades of slaughter, deployment and use of WMD, invasion of neighboring nations, and other such things, I'm damn glad Saddam is gone, and there was no other plausible way to do it except with the military.

A serial killer is convicted, and goes to jail based on incontrovertible evidence. He escapes, and does it again. He is captured, tried, and convicted a second time, again on hard evidence, and sent back to prison. He escapes, and dead people start turning up again with his M.O. He's captured, tried, and sentenced to death. After they execute him, someone feels that some of the evidence should not have been sufficient for the death sentence. Well, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, and I doubt anyone else would either.