Max Speaks.

The editorial page issues a mea culpa, but the culpa's all wrong.
They claim the problem with the war is not enough international support. Rubbish. More international support would get us more beheadings of Germans, French, and Russians.
They claim they should have disbelieved the WMD stories. But Saddam with WMDs is still not a credible threat to the U.S. North Korea has WMDs. Why don't they come after us? Why haven't they blown up Seattle. Because they're not crazy. Nor was Saddam. Even Dick Cheney once enunciated a case for not toppling Saddam.
The third bankrupt premise is that, whatever the ill-advisedness of the invasion, now we have to stay until "stability" is achieved. But there is nothing about what that means. There is no meaningful exit criterion.
Bottom line: New York Times liberalism condones invasions under international auspices for bad reasons absent considerations of feasibility and without exit strategies.
We need regime change more than we know.