Well, FA quotes briefly from a letter to the editor in today's paper. This person apparantly had written a previous one about "premise for war collapses" and caught conservative wrath for it.

Quote:
I found a certain charm in (other writers') wide-eyed belief in Bush, and I apologize for intruding on this worldview with unpleasant realities. I was even more interested in what they didn't say. No one stated that we weren't lied to. It doesn't seem that long ago since some of these same folks thought that lying by a president, even over something relatively trivial, was an awful thing. One might think that lying over something that has cost thousands of lives would be beyond awful. Times change, I suppose.


He continued with other points, mainly that we should use our relationships with other countreis to interdict financing and logistics of the terrorist networks, but the "arrogant and dishonest" way we dealt with other countries in the lead-up to Iraq hampers this cooperation. And that the ease with which we took Iraq and the lack of WMD proves that containment was working, and then he asks what have we accomplished that the UN would not have while saving thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars?

Now, to be fair, FA can imagine that one response would be that we accomplished removal of a dictator and opened a better chance for a democratic government to emerge in Iraq. However, the writer says "unfortunately, Bush didn't choose to make that or the humanitarian argument as reasons for war before the war, and I'm not arguing against the case that Bush should have made. The argument he made was that Iraq was a threat to our country with a huge capacity for weapons of mass destruction, plus close ties with al-Qaida."

The letter closing reflects what other polls and surveys are starting to show, apart from the historic place of the war itself: "Bush came to office promising to be a uniter, not a divider. He is uniting the world against us but dividing our nation against itself."