I don't see much debate actually. You just insist, with whatever rock comes to hand, that even though Iraq was defeated decisively, we could not have ousted Saddam. And that the reason for this lies anywhere but with the commander in chief. It'd look like a massive goof except that he had to promise this to get Arab support -- it really wasn't an option, unfortunately. It might have helped things along over the last decade.

BTW, the Fox story also says "U.S. Central Command, which oversees the war in Iraq, said in a statement that troops were examining several "sites of interest," but said it was premature to call the Najaf site a chemical weapons factory." You know, the guy there is bad and who the hell said he wasn't? The real question the war is why did Bush botch the approach to it so badly, putting the US on the outs with so many people? Whatever the reason for that, it's done and it's too bad.