I'm going to link to a few columns concerning the war here. First up, Jonah Goldberg, in a somewhat uncharacteristic fit of raging sarcasm.

It just seems everything old is new again. Bush "lied" because he believed the same intelligence John Kerry believed. Bush "lied" even though John Edwards called the threat from Iraq "imminent" — something Bush never did. No one bothers to ask how it could be possible that Bush lied. How could he have known there were no WMDs? No one bothers to wonder why Tony Blair isn't a liar. Indeed, no one bothers to ask whether the Great Diplomat and Alliance Builder believes our oldest and truest allies Great Britain and Australia are lead by equally contemptible liars. Of course, they can't be liars — they are merely part of the coalition of the bribed. In John Kerry's world, it's a defense to say your oldest friends aren't dishonest, they're merely whores.

Second, Paul Bremer, former head of U.S. efforts in Iraq, responding to the media furor over his recent comments (the NYT requires free registration).

Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.

Mickey Kaus

If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that? Why doesn't Bush make that argument--talking about Saddam's actions in the years before the U.S. invasion instead of Saddam's "intent" to have WMDs at some point in the future?

Neal Boortz:

More news in the War on Terror...this time regarding some information found in Iraq. A computer disc was found containing information about schools in California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey and Oregon. What was the information about? Information like photos, floor plans, as well as an Education Department report on how to prepare and respond to a crisis. And why would this information be there?

...if Iraq is not a terrorist threat, then why was this material found in Iraq? Because it is a terrorist threat, that's why.