Blair's Boosterism: God, I could listen to that guy read a menu. Blair, of course, argues the right point: regardless of why we did what we did in Iraq, the outcome was nothing less than a home run. No tears will be shed for Saddam being taken down. I think Blair makes another good point: history favors the bold. While the political opportunists will jump up and down, when you get some perspective on what was really accomplished, those who take risks to advance the ball are regarded kindly. Those who sit and whimper are at best forgotten, at worst, vilified. Now, if there was evidence that Bush et al. purposely misled us, or knowingly overstated the risks, then you have a basis to complain, and importantly, not re-elect. Leaving aside Uranium-gate, I think what is most disconcerting, and which neither Bush nor Blair can crow over, is the lack of foresight for what came after the Iraqis were "liberated". We supposedly had this team of ex-pats ready to step into ministerial roles and get the country running; we supposedly had this former general who was going to operate the intermin government; we supposedly had a plan on how long our troops would be overseas and how much it would cost. For all the planning on how to rid the world of terrorism (a daunting task to be sure), you'd think we could have given at least one guy the job of turning the lights back on.