As I live and breathe, I never thought I'd see this -- on CNN no less!

In an article describing the new book about the Plame non-story, written by two committed lefties (Isikoff and Corn), CNN actually points out what has been obvious to most of us since day 1 -  there was never any "there" there.

But for CNN to make this observation is devastating, both for Joe Wilson's (last remaining shreds of) credibility, and for their silly lawsuit.

Key grafs:
"The revelation that Armitage was the source of Novak's column is somewhat anticlimactic for Bush administration critics who had used the story as a weapon in Washington's partisan battles."

Anticlimactic.  Yeah, I'd say so.

Then there's this:

"Last month, Plame and Wilson filed a civil lawsuit alleging a conspiracy that "was motivated by an invidiously discriminatory animus towards those who had publicly criticized the administration's stated justifications for going to war with Iraq" and culminated with the disclosure that Plame worked at the CIA....However, the scenario described by the sources appears to contradict those arguments."

Full story:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/30/leak.armitage/index.html

Recently I've been thinking about my support for the Iraq war.  It has never wavered, even in the darkest moments, and I still strongly support the action despite the recent wave of horrifying violence against Iraqi civilians.  But of course many people look at me as though I eat babies when I share my perspective on this.

This got me to thinking - it is easy to oppose war; indeed, there are perhaps few things easier.  Civilians get killed, our finest US soldiers die or are horribly maimed, and the chattering classes all over the world cluck and scold and twitter about arrogance and imperial hubris. 

But let us, for a moment, consider - what is the alternative?  Indeed, the foreign policy of the past 30 years has arguably consisted of one textbook example after another of avoiding war at virtuallly any cost - let us whip out our pocket calculators and take full measure of how well the strategies of containment, appeasement, and diplomacy have served our interests:

1. Jimmy Carter tried to negotiate with the terrorist government in Iran for release of embassy hostages.  Then there was the bungled rescue attempt - did America look strong and forceful or weak and incompetent?
2. Ronald Reagan traded arms for hostages with Iran - did this pave the way to a new and better relationship with Iran?  Or have they become even more radicalized?
3. Ronald Reagan did not respond militarily to the terrorist attack on the US Marines who were killed in Beirut - is Lebanon more secure today than it was then?
4. Bush 41 pushed Saddam out of Kuwait but opted for the easy exit rather than marching into Baghdad to overthrow his corrupt and murderous regime - did Saddam "learn his lesson" or become even more confrontational?
5. Bill Clinton pulled US troops out of Mogadishu when the going got tough after the "Black Hawk Down" incident.  How did America's enemies interpret this action?
6. Bill Clinton responded to numerous al Qaeda provocations with cruise missile attacks, with predictable results.
7. Bill Clinton negotiated a settlement with North Korea in exchange for the abandonment of their nuclear enrichment program.  Enough said.

So a fair question when asked whether the Iraq war was necessary is - can you point to a time when an alternative strategy has worked?