Accept it.

Watching American foreign policy stumble further into ineptitude in early 2003 was a pretty bitter pill to swallow. Especially knowing that it would have been (and would still be) inhumane at best and treasonous at worst to think or say "I told you so" as the plan and rationale for invading Iraq dissolved into a confused defense of "liberty" , "freedom", or some synonym thereof.

I admire those who still defend the war, particularly in the face of the decline in support, resulting from relative lack of success. And steadfastness has its rewards: nobody has benefited from the invasion quite like the investors of defense contractors and construction firms with sweet deals in Mesopotamia. Seriously, I'd love to be in on that action, but I'd suffer a major crisis of conscience.

But this is all white noise. No one has an original thought left on the war in Iraq or the alleged war on terrorism. Not even the vice president:

"I know some have suggested that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein, we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq on September 11th, 2001, and the terrorists hit us anyway."

Was this line really such a winner the first time he used it?

I grudgingly agree with the National Review that the Post took the line out of context (though I'd hardly consider it a "mangling"), but anybody who cries foul over Eugene Robinson's selective use of Cheney's words overlooks something that has been generally accepted among pundits and diplomats alike: Iraq had little if anything to do with September 11. Linking the two in this context is "intellectually lazy" as they say.

I don't know if any of this matters anymore. The guy at the National Review's blog concludes his post on Robinson's journalistic "blunder" (my quotes), "Some people will never accept the argument that confronting Iraq was an essential part of dealing with the threat from Islamic radicalism." Again, he's right. Dammit.