finally, a piece of decent critical reporting from the nyt. this is long, but well worth your time. the conclusion isn't shocking (we interpreted intelligence on iraqi weapons, uh, freely, shall we say), but the amount of evidence is impressive. i especially like the part where the administration knew (or should have known) as early as (pre-september-11) 2001 that iraq had not, in fact, begun building nuclear weapons.

on a related note: was anyone else dispirited by kerry's lack of clarity on iraq in the debate? it seems unbelievable that he still feels it necessary to say that the only problem with this invasion was its execution.

...but i guess that's why i was a dean fan. yeeeaaarrrrgggh!!!