My hometown newspaper, which called the first debate a draw and lamely called the second one for Cheney (something about "he did a great job sticking by Bush"), actually contributed something worthwhile to the arena of ideas today:
http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=71903§ion=Opinion
All this comes as the president, vice president and their knee-jerk supporters continue to insist that Iraq was "a gathering threat" to the United States. It wasn't. It was a fading threat, at least in the terms the Bush administration used to convince Americans that pre-emptive invasion was necessary.
The administration seems to happily wear blinders when facts don't conform to its war policy. It's as if the White House has hung a sign in the doorway that reads "No thinking allowed."
One of the marks of smart leadership is knowing when mistakes have been made, and then owning up to them. The Bush administration tends to crow about accountability, but when it comes to bad news about the war (and the news gets worse every day), the administration either blames the media and political opponents or impugns the integrity of critics.
--snip--
But the questions remain: Was Saddam a serious enough threat to justify going to war? Can the deaths of 1,000 American soldiers and the wounding of thousands more be justified on the basis of the primary reasons the Bush administration went to war?