I am getting so fed up with the hawks’ tireless insistence that Dubya & Co. never claimed that Iraq presented an “imminent threat.”

Let’s assume for a moment that it’s true that they didn’t in so many words — or so many others — use that line of argument. To me the natural follow-up question is this: Should U.S. foreign policy post-9/11 be putting the overwhelming majority of its intellectual, human, physical and financial resources into fighting a threat that is not imminent?

You can say a lot of things about 9/11, but it sure as hell showed that Al Qaeda was not just an imminent threat, but a proven threat. Why was it wise to drain resources from that effort?

Might the folks who died in the Bali, Istanbul, Riyadh and Madrid attacks be alive today if Dubya & Co. just stuck to the game plan? It’s impossible to know. But if they’re to get credit for Iraq, they should get some portion of the blame for those tragic events.