Post Facto Justification?

Norm Geras has a great post pointing out that those claiming that those who advocated the war in Iraq argued only in terms of WMDs and attacking terrorism are wrong. They have their own rhetoric confused with reality. They have repeated the "Bush Lied!" mantra so often they can't see anything else.

Noemie Emery has an excellent piece this week in The Weekly Standard about the disarray of the Democrats:

[A] small diehard clique of old-line insurgents hiding out in the depths of the U.S. Senate decided to make confirmation hearings for Condoleezza Rice the venue of a bomb-throwing session, on the basis of two cherished liberal theories: one, that the war in Iraq is an utter catastrophe; and two, that while criticism of liberal nonwhites and women is always racist and sexist in nature, nonwhites and women who are right-wing or centrist are less than "authentic," and therefore deserve what they get. Thus, Margaret Carlson in the Los Angeles Times found nothing amiss in Boxer's calling Rice a liar and a lackey,
but insisted Boxer's critics were somehow attacking all women.

And that's just the beginning.