We debated the war before the first bombs fell, and it looks like we're going to continue debating it for the next year or so.
Democrats have gotten a second wind on their anti-war arguments, and have come out big-time against what we have already done.
At least that's what you might conclude listening to their arguments President Bush was fudging the evidence against Iraq before our troops even invaded.
They're not saying what they wanted to happen instead, but I'd like to know.
Does Howard Dean (search) favor Saddam Hussein still in charge of Iraq come Election Day 2004?
Does John Kerry (search) think it would be better if President Bush had said during the U.N. debate, "You know what, the French are right. We should just let Saddam sit in his palaces and we'll hope the inspectors get it right."
Do any of the Democrats believe it was better to take out Saddam? Or do they believe it would be better if we had done nothing, if we had sat by as various diplomatic measures amounted to doing nothing?
Somebody tell me which it is.
And by the way, one explanation going around for the British misinformation that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Niger (search) — the info came from the French, but they won't let the British release their source.
So President Bush ends up standing around looking like the rug was pulled out from under him. Don't you think the French just love that?
What do you think? We'd like to hear from you, so send us your comments at firstname.lastname@example.org. Some of your emails will be featured on the air or on our site.
• Looking for previous My Word columns?