How does it serve the antiwar movement to expect every recently-converted, once-hawkish politico to wear a big, scarlet "I" (for Iraq? Ignoramus? Idiot? It's-about-time?) and beg in the town square for our forgiveness? Our goal is to enlighten every citizen to the unjust insanity of our adventures in the Gulf. If Newt and all of his newly aware friends don't wish to flog themselves for our amusement, that's OK! What we need is for all of these hawks to come to our side and bring the voters whom they hoodwinked into this with them.

We don't need grovelling, we need majority consensus so that we can eject the real ring leaders from office asap. Expecting full and complete public contrition from the converted hawks is counterproductive. In civil debate, once you've won a party over to your side, there is neither a need to humiliate them nor a necessity for them to do it for you. In the electoral climate in which we live, this is especially important. How can we expect Joe Republican on the street to listen to us if we excorciate his now-converted political icon for having changed his mind without doing so to the extent that we'd like?

and anyone else that wants it both ways. Stationing troops in fortified installations in Iraq won't be any deterrent to the civil war already under way.

Huffington's point cannot be understated. When a former hawk now comes around our way of thinking about this mess, they should be commended for the courage that it takes in this day and age to acknowledge a mistake. I think, however that the word Hamsher -- and Warroom -- is looking for, and this is particularly apropos on Easter weekend, is penance. Because these one-time hawks were more than just wrong about some wonkish policy initiative. They lent their voices to an ill-fated misadventure which has cost thousands of American lives, and so much more. In a very real sense, they have blood on their hands, and it will take quite a bit of hard public scrubbing if they wish to cleanse themselves.

So congratulate them indeed on coming around and admitting they were wrong, but demand their penance as well before they are forgiven.

Tim Howe

Wauconda, IL

To right-leaning outsiders and moderates, the left often appears as a spoiled child that is constantly bitching about things while never actually making steps toward change. It's correct of us that were right about the war to think "I told you so", but harping on that helps nothing and no one.

The Republicans are incredibly conscious of appearing to have a solid stance on the issues, because they recognize that the American people support people with a solid stance, no matter how right or wrong. Look at Bush -- the guy will go down with his ship and take thousands of Americans with him, and yet people (and not just religious-right die-hard conservates) still respect his unflagging conviction in his own policies. What's up with that?

It's screwed up, but we can take a lesson from his success. The moderates in the nation are not swayed by policy but rather by conviction. By welcoming converts to the "Iraq is a mistake" camp, we lend credence to what the Democrats like Feingold, Boxer, and Chafee were saying all along. Only those that voted against the Iraq resolution can actually say that they were against it all along and be telling the truth. What once was seen as a liability becomes the greatest strength of all.

The point is, let them come, and welcome them -- just politely correct them every time they try to rewrite history. Sure, it takes us swallowing some bile every time one of the right-leaning punks like Gingrich spews self-righteous nonsense. But having those people on our side only strengthens our support in the moderate base.

I think we should treat those wishing to cross over the border into the anti-war camp as we would undocumented immigrants. Let's offer them temporary permits to be against the war, but then, at election time, they have to go back to the pro-war camp and face the music. Or maybe they can "earn" the right to display anti-war gear, use anti-war postage stamps, etc. How about those that have been against the war for over six months get to earn the right to be anti-war, but everyone else has to stay a Republican or right-wing Dem (including Hillary and of course Joe), and shall be construed as effectively having commited a felony?

and that's the beauty of being a progressive or in the Democratic Party. There really is room for more than one opinion. Lockstep thinking not required. In fact, having the discussion bouncing back and forth may actually be quite valuable.

Just for the record, though, Paul Krugman was saying something along these lines last month (March 10th), and in fact, he did make both points, as well as several of his own:

Bruce Bartlett, the author of ''Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy,'' is an angry man. At a recent book forum at the Cato Institute, he declared that the Bush administration is ''unconscionable,'' ''irresponsible,'' ''vindictive'' and ''inept.''

It's no wonder, then, that one commentator wrote of Mr. Bartlett that ''if he were a cartoon character, he would probably look like Donald Duck during one of his famous tirades, with steam pouring out of his ears.''

Oh, wait. That's not what somebody wrote about Mr. Bartlett. It's what Mr. Bartlett wrote about me in September 2003, when I was saying pretty much what he's saying now.

[snip]

Never mind; better late than never. We should welcome the recent epiphanies by conservative commentators who have finally realized that the Bush administration isn't trustworthy. But we should guard against a conventional wisdom that seems to be taking hold in some quarters, which says there's something praiseworthy about having initially been taken in by Mr. Bush's deceptions, even though the administration's mendacity was obvious from the beginning. [emphasis mine]

According to this view, if you're a former Bush supporter who now says, as Mr. Bartlett did at the Cato event, that ''the administration lies about budget numbers,'' you're a brave truth-teller. But if you've been saying that since the early days of the Bush administration, you were unpleasantly shrill.

Similarly, if you're a former worshipful admirer of George W. Bush who now says, as Mr. Sullivan did at Cato, that ''the people in this administration have no principles,'' you're taking a courageous stand. If you said the same thing back when Mr. Bush had an 80 percent approval rating, you were blinded by Bush-hatred.

And if you're a former hawk who now concedes that the administration exaggerated the threat from Iraq, you're to be applauded for your open-mindedness. But if you warned three years ago that the administration was hyping the case for war, you were a conspiracy theorist.

The truth is that everything the new wave of Bush critics has to say was obvious long ago to any commentator who was willing to look at the facts.

There's more. If you are not a TimesSelect subscriber, you can also find Krugman, et al, via Lexis/Nexis.