This is an older media announcement. You can tell I'm trying to clean up some backlog.

Critics of the report say this is old news. I think the main lesson learned is this.

First, quit arguing about whether we found WMD or not. Somehow we convinced ourselves WMD was present.

If we have made a decision that WMD is present and we must invade, then your next step is to consider this question. What do we need to do to successfully manage the aftermath of the invasion? In other words, what are the requirements to be successful in a worst case scenario?

Once you determine the requirements, what if you consider the cost to be too high? What then? Does that cause you to think again about whether invasion is the only option open to you?

In my opinion, no one was asking those what-if questions because the exercise was academic, not personal. And if you consider the cost is too high, then don't go. If you do go and balk at paying the cost, then you only reveal yourself as a paper tiger unwilling to pay the cost.

What's that old line about, "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool instead of opening your mouth and removing all doubt"? The parallel would be, "Better to threaten war and not commit instead of going to war and showing your inability to sustain the fight to victory."

Here's a link to the article.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html