Hey, haven't seen this place in a while. Well, the war is over and the warhawks have been proven completely wrong. Have they recanted? Have they acknowledged that maybe the sceptics were somewhat right? It would be reasonable to think that they would, but these people are not reasonable. No way in hell will they ever admit they were wrong about something they invested so much time in. They took what Bush said at face value and accused those of us who did not support the war of being "pro-Saddam". Now they have egg on their face, but they're not even backpedaling. No, they're still as arrogant as ever. Read this post by Glen Reynolds. He calls theories that Bush lied "absurd", and insists that antiwar folks are desperate. Let's see, now. Bush said that Iraq had WMD and was a direct threat. We now know that both these things are false. Bush said them and they were not true. Ergo, Bush lied. You have to do some serious punditry sleight-of-hand to weasel out of this one. And nobody is better at weaseling than the warhawks. Except maybe the weasel. (Full disclosure: I semi-stole that joke from The Simpsons)

Now the warhawks have fallen back on the argument that if Saddam were still in power, Iraq would still be a tyranny. That may be true, but look at all the tyrannies in the world today. I could argue that I support war with Zimbabwe, and if you do not you must be pro-tyranny. Plus, let's not forget all the Iraqis that have been "liberated" from their lives by this war. It would have taken Saddam quite a while to kill as many Iraqis as those who have died at our military's hands.

The moral of this story is that you cannot reason with somebody who has made up his (or her) mind about going to war. Logic goes out the window. To these people, war brings peace and freedom means killing foreigners and trampling on rights. And they primarily run the country. Scary.

You gotta love it when a socialist liberal evokes economics to back up a point they're making. Economics is completely not on their side. But when it's necessary, they usually defer to a bought-and-paid-for economist to help them out. Here's a liberal blogger's take on profits:

I'm a bit puzzled by something (well, not really). As anyone will learn in a basic economics class, while the pursuit of profit is the raison d'etre for businesses, profits themselves should be generally frowned upon by your efficiency-loving economist. Profits (or above normal rates of return) should exist as reward for innovation, or risk-taking, but otherwise are a sign of some market imperfection - generally market power. So, what can we conclude when the owners of the Philadelphia Inquirer doesn't consider a profit margin in the "mid-teens" to be high enough?

Where did this guy take economics? If it were true that low profits were the mark of efficiency, the Soviet Union would have been the most efficient economy on the planet. There's a reason that U.S. firms make large profits and provide resources efficiently. No matter how many times you point out the almost direct correlation between profit-seeking behavior and economic progress, these people never figure it out.

Wellity, wellity, wellity. It seems the "Paper of Record" has been printing all the news that's fit to plagiarize. And where did the not-so-esteemed Jayson Blair plagiarize from? The Washington Post, that's where. And that's on top of the stuff he just made up entirely.

I've been saying it for a while, but I'll say it again: The Post kicks the Times' ass.

This headline is wasted on that article.

I don't get the big deal people are making about the remarks of Sen. Santorum. I think a lot of people saw the ease with which Trent Lott was taken down and are now thirsty for more blood. But most of the criticisms I have seen are outright distortions. Take, for example, the charge that Santorum equated homosexuality with bigamy and incest. He did no such thing. What he said was, if the Court rules that anti-sodomy laws cannot be enforced on the grounds that they are acts by consenting adults, then anti-bigamy or anti-incest laws cannot be enforced for the same reason. Is this not true? I draw a different conclusion than Santorum. Rather than enforce all of them, I believe none should be crimes. Except bestiality, but only on the grounds that it's animal cruelty.

Plus, I'm not a big fan of those who dismiss 2000 years of Church teaching because it's not politically correct. And they do it arrogantly. As many of these same people said about the war, when you've got the Pope opposed to you, it's time to do some serious thinking.

Chemical Ali? Dr. Germ? What's next, Captain America fighting Saddam Hussein?

Butler Shaffer, a law school professor, is one of my favorite columnists. This one on the Iraq war is not to be missed.