Does Charlie Resse reads bs? We're either both sane, or insane. I leave that to you, the reader to decide. Here's a snip:

Are You Going To Get Mad?

It is now about as clear as it's going to get that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. Secretary of State Colin Powell even contradicted himself (in his U.N. speech) by admitting recently that there is no evidence of any link between Saddam and al-Qaida.

Prior to the Iraq War, the Bush administration asserted as fact that Saddam had huge quantities of chemical and biological weapons and was actively pursuing nuclear weapons. Administration members ridiculed people who expressed any doubts. Today, after spending millions of dollars looking for the weapons, they haven't found anything. And every Iraqi official captured, none of whom has any reason at all to lie, has said the same thing: There are no weapons of mass destruction.

In fact, the Iraqis had been saying that for years, and the Bush administration replied, "You're lying." Now we have this situation. The facts on the ground prove that the Iraqis, whom President Bush called liars, were telling the truth. What does that make Bush? It makes Bush either very badly mistaken or a liar.

It seems to me that if Bush were merely mistaken, he would admit it. He would say to the American people: "Look, I thought Iraq had those weapons based on intelligence, but apparently the intelligence was wrong. I apologize for misleading you." But the president will not do that. He gets huffy and defensive when asked about weapons of mass destruction. Before the war, he never opened his mouth without talking about weapons of mass destruction. It might be that there is simply an arrogant gene in the Bush family. It might be that he was just lying.

It is true that the intelligence reports contained a lot of reservations, expressions of doubt and uncertainty, but when this came out of the political process, it was told to the American people as unquestionable fact without reservations. "Intelligence gathered by this government and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and to conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," Bush said on March 17. All the Bush people were asserting this to be a fact. More at link.

Well? Are you going to get mad?

Then there is:

Threat Of Terrorism

You know, I'm sure, that the Bush administration has greatly exaggerated the threat of terrorism. Those who employ the tactic of terrorism do so because they are weak. They have no army. They have no great popular following.

Osama bin Laden was a crank living in the mountains of Afghanistan with only a small following in the Islamic world — until George W. Bush elevated him to world celebrity status.

It's true that bin Laden knocked down the World Trade Center towers and struck the Pentagon — or at least we're pretty sure he was behind those attacks. He was able to do that because his 19 people were lucky and because our immigration screening, our intelligence, the FBI and the airport security system were all sloppy.

To the extent that these attacks roused the federal government from its previous apathy and sloppiness, he did us a favor, though at the terrible cost of about 3,000 lives. But that attack was not justification for a "war on terrorism." A war on bin Laden, yes; a war on terrorism in general, no.

In the first place, there aren't that many terrorists in the world. You can check with the State Department's annual report on terrorism if you doubt me. In the second place, most of the world's terrorists are local guys with local beefs against local folks. All the time the Irish terrorists were bombing and shooting the British, Great Britain never felt the necessity of declaring a worldwide war on terrorism. It went after the Irish terrorists.

When bombs were going off in Paris some years ago, the French didn't say everyone must fight terrorism. They went after the guys who were planting the bombs.

It pleases George Bush to call Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist organizations, but they are not, as far as the United States is concerned. Their target is Israel. The Israelis are right to call them terrorists, but we, as a sovereign country, should never go about adopting other people's enemies as our own. Neither Hamas nor Islamic Jihad has ever attacked the United States or expressed any desire to do so. And the same is true of most so-called terrorists in most parts of the world.

Our problem is with bin Laden and his al-Qaida organization. We should have concentrated on that instead of declaring a global jihad against terrorists everywhere in the world. More at link.

I'm sure that well reasoned commentary like this must give those that are still supportive of Bush mental shutdown. If they were capable of cognitive dissonance, it would have happened by now....unless you're an exclusive watcher of Faux News.