> Also: The notion that we were deceived into a war, at least deceived
> unwillingly, is strikes me as horribly naive.
You're quite right that the outrage is rather like Claude Rains in Casablanca saying he was "shocked, *shocked*" to find out there was gambling going on at Rick's Place. But it's the very opposite of naive, just like he was. Rather it's opportunistic in the good sense. There are two important things at stake:
1) If there WMD justification for the war vanishes, there is no justification. It would mean the US just arrogated the right to invade a country simply because it wanted to, as if that was right enough. I know you knew that all along, but an admission of the same by the administration on the world stage -- admitting in essence that we're a rogue state -- would be something else again. They will not admit any such thing, of course. But that's what they feel cornered against. and they will miss this justification if it goes, because
a) If the WMD claim can be made a byword for lying and forged
intelligence, they won't be able to use it anytime soon in, say,
Iran.
b) It will be very hard to get Britain to ally with us next time, and
that's the only ally we've got.
The combination of the two will make us look more and more like the naked rogue elephant we are. Which will make things harder for the forces of Bushit in the future.
2) Bushit policy in every field is built on lies. Hammering away at the fact they lied -- and repeating it over and over and over -- is exactly the right method for inducing a credibility crisis. Any lie we can make an issue and force them to defend at length and then admit was a lie is a good thing. It won't do it all by itself. But every little bit helps.
Michael