I can't help thinking that Steven has misunderstood the reason more evidence of atrocities in Iraq hasn't moved liberals towards feeling the invasion was a good idea.

Ask them about people tortured by their own governments and leftists will condemn it. But it's an abstract evil, a nebulous thing hanging outside of the range of perception. Watch what they do rather than listen to what they say and it becomes clear that they don't really care about it.

Leftists pride themselves on their compassion, and criticize "conservatives" for being heartless and brutal. Yet leftist compassion seems extremely selective. Not all pain and death is the same; it seems that what matters most is who causes that pain and death and what their motives were.

The thing is, we already knew about horrors like the use of chemical weapons against Saddam's own people. Revelation is the wrong word. I think Steven would be the first to agree we cannot and should not invade every country with a horrible brutal dictator who does things sickening beyond description. As he emphasized himself when the lack of WMD in Iraq became a topic for discussion, the invasion is only in America's interest (and only humanitarian in the long run) if we build a peaceful and prosperous country which does not deteriorate into civil war in the long run.

That being the case, anything that makes this outcome seems less likely will make most who opposed the war feel confirmed in their judgement - and even make some who supported it doubtful.