Very Serious And Very Consistent

As we celebrate the Fifth Anniversary of Dear Leader's Invasion of Iraq, I found it most helpful to read the inspirational and erudite column of two scholars, Christopher Cerf and Victor S. Navasky, in today's Los Angeles Times. I urge you all to click on over to get the full impact of the results of their studies, and to give you some encouragement, I am herewith providing a few snippets from that weighty column.

We can state without fear of contradiction that never before in the history of institute surveys has there been such a dramatic consensus among experts -- those who, by virtue of official status, academic standing, formal title, mastery of jargon and/or number of publications, are presumed to know what they are talking about.

They all seemed to agree that:

* The link between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks was (to quote New York Times columnist William Safire) an "undisputed fact."

* Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. ("Only a fool, or possibly a Frenchman, would think otherwise": Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen.)

* The cost of war would be cheap at the price. ("We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction": then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.)

* The U.N.'s chief weapons inspector was unreliable. (Hans Blix "couldn't find the stretch marks on Rosie O'Donnell": Laura Ingraham, syndicated radio host.)

* Torture is justifiable. ("Reasonable people will disagree about when torture is justified": John C. Yoo, then-deputy assistant attorney general.)

* Abu Ghraib was not all that bad. (Abu Ghraib "is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation": Rush Limbaugh.)

* The U.S. won the war within weeks. ("The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper West Side liberals and a few people here in Washington": Charles Krauthammer, syndicated columnist.)

Yes, these very serious people all agree: Iraq was a good thing.