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.