Okay, submitted that Bush was an unmitigated bastard for invading Iraq instead of......instead of....

Well, I guess that's about as far as I can go with this, because if I start bringing up choices, alternatives, and "what ifs," everybody's brain seems to slam shut like a frightened oyster.

I will say this:

- If Bush had done what everyone thinks he should have done, Saddam and his sons would still be in power, and the no-fly zones and sanctions still in effect, including whatever damage those policies were doing to Iraqi civilians. Barring any other outside force, this would be the case for decades.

- Saddam had the intent to build WMD given the slightest opportunity. Both Kay's and Duelfer's reports are very clear on this.

- The U.N. is not very good at keeping determined nations from building weapons.

If you think that situation is preferable, fine. I suppose it's a valid position when balanced against the costs of war in lives and money.

But my view is that we would just have put this problem off for another ten years, and the job would have been no easier then.