I was set to launch into a wee dissent from Safire's opinion article from this morning's Times; but, Mr. Marshall has already surpassed any work that I could do. Go read his TPM on this.
I'm somewhat bummed, in light of the string of consents I and Safire shared lately. But Marshall's final paragragh sums up this latest:

Let's be honest. Homefront disputes over war aims, justifications and policy are seldom helpful to the conduct of a war, at least in an immediate operational sense. But accountability and responsibility are so alien to these people that the responsibility for their manipulations, reckless enthusiasm and lack of planning rests not with them, but on the shoulders of those who now choose to call them on it.

In fact, I think this might give too much. Though the readership of this blog most likely would be the choir to whom I'd be preaching, I will lay out at least one clear post on just why it is of utmost importance to inquire as deeply as possible into the use of intellegence and the "selling" of this war.
Anyone who guff-aws at the use of "selling" here must not have been in the U.S. for the months/year leading up to April, 2003. The war was unquestionably sold in the sense that the Administration wanted the American public to support its initiation. Nothing wrong with that. The questions we need to answer, as a voting public, are: 1) 'what degree of spin will we tolerate from our leaders when they lay out reasons for war?' and 2) 'with what degree of trust will we absorb what they say?'