I can't think of a good title for this post

Debra Saunder's latest article makes fun of some of the cliches opponents of the Iraq War have repeated over the year.

The Pottery Barn Rule: You broke it, you own it. There was a time you couldn't go a day without hearing an Iraq war opponent invoke former Secretary of State Colin Powell's famous warning about sending U.S. troops into Iraq. Apparently, these folks never really believed in the rule, because they now want America to disown an Iraq mired in chaos.

Well the rule was used in two senses, the political and the practical. Now that Iraq is a mess the practical effect is that we have a duty to do what's right by the Iraqi people (although we might clearly disagree on what that right is). We wrecked their country so we owe it to them to help rebuild. I buy that. I suspect most liberals would. The question is what is the best way to help our Iraqi victims. Should we stick around, continuing the cycle of violence? Or should we depart, learn a lesson about the limits of our power, and provide financial and humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people as they rebuild? Or something in between?

On the political side of the fence, which you would think Karl Rove will have at least considered, the Republicans blew the call on Iraq - the American people should keep that in mind when considering whether or not they want to trust Republicans with power.

Here's another

Impeachment is an attempt to overturn a popular election. The left used that argument repeatedly when the GOP House impeached President Bill Clinton. Funny, you don't hear the left making that argument when Democrats call for the House to start impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

She leaves out an article, which is probably a smart move all things considered. Impeachment should be a mechanism of protecting America from a wrongdoing President. In the 1990s Republicans felt that the union had to be protected from a President who had sex with an intern and lied about it. In the 2000s some Democrats believe that the Union has to be protected from a President who systematically deceived the American people into invading Iraq while committing several violations of their basic rights.

You might disagree with their assessment but at least the Democrats reasons seem a bit more serious, don't they?