One of the great things about being an independent is that it's quite a bit easier to call things like one sees them, rather than factoring in partisan calculations.

This story about Dubya's "fighting back" against the charge that Compound W manipulated intelligence to get us into the Iraq War illustrates the point nicely. On one level, POTUS is correct, the Dems did go along, and the Clinton Administration had similar concerns about Regime Saddam. Nevertheless, the point is that there has been evidence that some in the current administration had expressed a strong interest in taking some action against Saddam BEFORE 9/11. And 9/11 provided cover (I wouldn't say "justification") for attacking Iraq.

On this one, I think the Dems are credible. Had I known the truth and not been manipulated, I would not have voted to authorize force in Iraq, strikes me as coherent. 43's arguments are starting to sound desperate. Note this point that Scott McClelland makes, that it's irresponsible to level what he calls "baseless and false attacks that send the wrong signal to our troops and our enemy during a time of war."

It's an appeal that I understand on some levels, but it implies that no one can responsibly criticize a war while it's being waged. That strikes me as an almost unAmerican viewpoint.

Still, people seem to be seeing through W's game. In politics and, really, most of life, credibility is vital, and yet when nearly 60% say you're "not honest," Bush is on a path toward presidential implosion. That's nothing new, of course, for rare is it that a Prez leaves office without a cloud over his head.

-Robert Capozzi