At the risk of violating Godwin's Law, the fact of the matter is that the choice faced w/r/t Saddam (and now North Korea) was stark:

We could do nothing, in the hopes that the interminable process MIGHT have an effect; or
We could take action.

The criticism of Chamberlain and Daladier at Munich was that they failed to strangle the Nazi baby in the crib, when it was still feasible.

Remembering that, as of 1938, Hitler had NOT exterminated the Jews, even in Germany (Oppressed, yes. But Auschwitz and Treblinka were still at least four years away). He hadn't bombed Rotterdam or London, authorized Babi Yar, or even oppressed non-Germans. Was it really a better thing to have not acted in the absence of "smoking guns"?

I know from personal experience that gathering and interpreting intelligence is more of an art than a science. Even with high-tech sources such as satellite imagery, one has to exercise judgment, since what comes in is a mixture of genuine and bogus information. Thus the assessments that the President of the United States receives will never be perfect, but it's better to act decisively on incomplete information than to sit on overwhelming evidence and do nothing (Democrats, take note). It's just as well for President Bush to ride out this pesudo-crisis over one sentence in his last State of the Union speech - if the Democrats keep it up, they will be put in the same category as the boy who cried wolf one time too many. Bush has vulnerabilities, and the Republicans know it, but this is not worth the full media-circus treatment.

the only people who care already hate the us and think empire's a bad thing

the main problem is that there aren't enough invasions

should have to prove why the us shouldn't invade... be a much better way of running the world...

luckily its heading that way

Oh, puh-leeze.

Does anyone think that the US is about to invade anyone in Western (or Eastern, for that matter) Europe? This, despite significant diferences of opinion and meaningful differences?

How about East Asia (leaving aside NK for the moment). We don't particularly like the Chinese, and then there's the Burmese, the Malaysian government, the Vietnamese. Think there's a plan afoot to go ashore nexgt week?

South America? Why not invade Cuba? Pain the butt for this long, if we were seriously intent on invading everyone out there, you'd think Cuba, w/ no Soviet Union, would be ripe for the pickin'.

Shoot, even in the Middle East, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find us invading Libya, or Syria for that matter (press speculation aside back in March).

So far, we've held to the "Axis of Evil," and even there, I don't seem to recall too many folks planning for an invasion of Iran or North Korea.

Just how far up there can you jam your head, anyway?

I think Bush may be secretly trying to keep this non-scandal alive. It will destroy the Democrats, Bush is giving them all the rope they need and the Dems can't tie the noose fast enough.

Krauthammer (and Green) once again miss the point with a willful comprehensiveness. The point of the scandal is not that it was bad policy to invade Iraq , or that it's possible to get perfect intelligence. It's that in the face of glaringly dubious intelligence, someone through deception or incompetence (possibly Bush, but maybe not) lied to the American people. When Green says that pursuing the truth of this vital question will come back to 'bite the Democrats on the ass,' he shows pretty clearly that he cares a lot more about protecting 'his guy' than protecting the Democratic process that we all depend upon.

No, Schrifty, the point of Stephen and Charles K is that intelligence is an iffy thing---ALWAYS.

For the same reason that nobody in any kind of position of responsibility has claimed that Clinton LIED when he bombed the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, or that he LIED when he intervened in Kosovo (just how many civilians were genocided, anyway?).

Whether or not either attack was ultimately justified, the belief is that the President acted on the best available information. It may not be very good information, but that is USUALLY the case.

The flip side of the argument, that we were deliberately misled into a war, is but a step or two away from Dubya LIHOP (Let It [9-11] Happen on Purpose). You can choose to believe that if you will, but in my book, that puts you beyond the Outer Rim of fringeness....

I'm sorry Dean, but that's not a valid analogy. Clinton didn't LIE, because Clinton never discussed it with the public before doing it. Bush did, because he needed public support. It's a simple difference - I don't know why it's so tough to grasp. If the President lied, then he lied. A lie is a lie is a lie.

On the other hand, I'm not saying that he DID lie - just that there's reasonable evidence to suggest that it's a possibility, so it must be looked into. Playing by the whitewater rules of persecution/prosecution, Bush is about 10 steps past the threshold.