Two quick questions for the anti-war folks who've decided that those of us on the center-left who initially supported the Iraq war should just sit down and shut up because we were wrong at the time, dammit: (1) Does this score-settling of yours mean that it's time for we centrists to take that See,-Howard-Dean-really-was-a-49-state-disaster-waiting-to-happen victory lap most of us have so studiously avoided up to now in the name of party unity? And (2), in the post-9-11 world -- and 9-11 did happen -- can we really deny a president who has not yet been caught prevaricating about national security the authority to defend the nation when he, and just about everyone else in Washington, for that matter, assures us that the country is at grave risk from weapons of mass destruction? I'm not at all thrilled to say this, but I really don't think we can. And you know what? I'll be more than happy to graciously welcome just about every Democrat in the country to my side of that particular argument when the president we're discussing is named John F. Kerry instead of George W. Bush.

POSTSCRIPT 1: The Americans and innocent Iraqis who've lost their lives in this war represent a terrible human tragedy. But waving their bloody shirts in order to score points in an argument that's essentially about principle would make one no better than the death penalty proponent who delights in displaying grisly crime-scene photos to stir the angry passions of decent, law-abiding Americans. So, if you're thinking of responding to this post in that way, don't.

POSTSCRIPT 2: And just so there's nobody left that I haven't thoroughly PO'd today, I should point out the clear implication of this post to my conservative friends. The key word up there was yet. As in, has not yet been caught prevaricating. Now that this administration has, in fact, been caught with its hand in the WMD jar, the essential trust I'm arguing that every president needs in this not-so-brave new world of ours is no longer Mr.

--------