In violent agreement

Matt Yglesias makes a good point about Tom Oliphant making a good point.

This is a kind of strange point of agreement between the president and his critics. We're saying Bush was committed to the invade-Iraq policy, never mind the evidence, and that this attitude led him to dramatically overstate the threat in a variety of ways. Bush, in essence, concedes the point that, for him, evidence regarding the scope and imminence of the threat was besides the point.

It's also worth reading Matt's post following the one linked to above. In contrast to the disastrous Gulf War II, Gulf War I looks pretty damn good. But was it really such a success? Evidently not.