Do Not Vote For Horrible Person Matt Miller

CA-33 people. Really just don't do it. Here's a lovely flashback.

Still, the real question for those who prefer their Bush presidencies in one-term doses is not whether today's attacks are fair, but whether they are smart.

My instinct is no. At some point - three months or six months or 12 months from now - indisputable proof of Saddam's weapons will emerge. When that happens, what will shrill, wrongheaded liberals who weirdly sound as if they're staking everything on Saddam Hussein's honesty seem to be but ... a bunch of shrill, wrongheaded liberals!

The boomerang will hit hard - and it will hit the whole Democratic Party.

The more sophisticated case for attacks on Bush's "intelligence hype" is that even if dubious, they will damage his credibility - raising doubts that will stick usefully for 2004. Republicans used this technique with ludicrous but tenacious assaults on Al Gore's "honesty" in 2000, and it hurt.

My own judgment, however, is that the boomerang risk when Saddam's weapons are eventually found is far, far greater than any credibility hit Bush will take. My point to the left: Why risk this boomerang when there are better, truer ways to bash Bush?