Those Democrats who voted in favor of committing American troops to Operation Iraqi Freedom and who now have jumped on the Peace Train have a huge problem: how do they explain their lack of scrutiny to President Bush' request for armed intervention and their subsequent vote in favor of it? Their story-and they're sticking to it-is that all of the intelligence available to the President was not made available to them and that in accordance with some sinister, master plan they, somehow, someway, became unwitting dupes and pawns to the President in his quest for war in Iraq. We are supposed to believe that, had they somehow known exactly what the President knew then, they would never have voted for American military intervention.

As Texans like to say, this dog won't hunt. Senator Clinton (as are Senator John Kerry and former senator John Edwards, two others who voted for war but who now claim to have seen the anti-Iraqi War light) is a trained, experienced attorney. Thinking critically and analyzing the evidence presented-not blind acceptance of it- are hallmarks of litigation work. These senators, and indeed each member of Congress, are serviced by a staff that can summon the expertise of retired military officers and members of the intelligence and diplomatic services to allow their respective senators and representatives to test the intelligence provided them by the President. That such senators, each of whom are former attorneys and who are or have been members of committees that even now issue subpoenas and examine witnesses, supposedly went along with the President, mesmerized by his spell as if rats following a Pied Piper, is inconceivable. That they cling to this story is worthy of contempt.

Such a conclusion is reinforced by the liberals' own attitude towards the President: that he is supposed to be incredibly stupid and easily led by a cabal of those members of his Cabinet who had been secretly scheming for war all along. Again, this ain't no huntin' dog: when any President goes to Congress for authorization to go to war-war, for goodness’ sake, with its horrible suffering and bloodshed-that request demands that each member of Congress apply the strictest of scrutiny to the intelligence and the stated mission of our military's involvement. Such scrutiny should have critically analyzed the reasons for war, the probability of success, and the costs in American lives to accomplish the mission. That these Democrats, many of whom subscribed to the "he's dumb as rocks" mentality, failed to do so leads to a choice of only two possible conclusions: (1) that each of these senators and representatives, having swallowed whole the allegedly fabricated rationale for war, were themselves infinitely dumber than they believed the President to be, or (2) they were themselves willing to send our military to fight, kill, suffer and die for a war they themselves did not believe necessary for the sole purpose of rehabilitating a public perception that the Democratic Party is weak on national security. There are no other logical conclusions.

Can anyone imagine what would have happened had our military interventions in Bosnia and Haiti-both initiated by President Bill Clinton, by the way-developed into insurgent wars of attrition? What would he have done? Had the casualty counts mounted and if the polls increasingly showed opposition to our continuing military involvement, would he have cut and run, or would he have remained resolute, firm in his belief that his decisions had been correct and understanding fully the consequences of withdrawal? To ask such questions is to answer them.

As a reminder to those currently wrapping themselves in the self-righteous mantle of "Bush Lied, People Died", there were indeed compelling American interests involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Not just our own intelligence agencies but those of our allies-notably Britain and Israel-believed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein was actively involved in terrorism, giving generous gifts of money to the surviving family members of "martyrs" who blew themselves up in Israeli buses, pizzerias, and marketplaces, and it is foolish to assume that he would not be willing to extend that support to those who would attack us. Our forces discovered torture chambers and mass graves and heroically rescued the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s tyranny in the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Whatever risks to American interests existed in Bosnia or Haiti in the 1990's, the risks by failing to act in Iraq-and in failing to finish the mission-are significantly greater.

No, Missus Clinton (and in fairness, every other liberal Democrat looking at 2008), you weren't misled. The problem with each of you is that you aspire to the Presidency, a position that has throughout our Nation’s history demanded leaders, and each of you, in reality, are followers. In decisions of war and peace, leadership requires a thorough analysis of the issues presented, including the advice of those persons, both pro and con, who have greater expertise and knowledge to help you analyze the courses of action and the advantages and disadvantages of each. Leadership requires making a decision, the moral courage to see a decision through, and the acceptance of the responsibility that comes with making such decisions. That moral courage comes in handy, especially when that decision has taken us through three years of war and when public opinion polls show that the American people are tiring of war and when it appears that only you can see the consequences of quitting. Ask Tony Blair.

Or, for that matter, ask President Bush.

John L. Overland, Jr. is a former United States Army officer and former Texas peace officer who now practices law in NYC. He welcomes comments via johnoverlandjr@aol.com.