As promised, here's a link to the lead editorial in our April 20 issue, "Bishops & Their Critics," which was mentioned in Peter Steinfels's "Beliefs" column in Saturday's New York Times. A sample:

President George W. Bushs decisionto go to war with Iraq was initially supported by a host of liberals,among them New Republic editor Peter Beinart and New Yorker writerGeorge Packer. These commentators were convinced that Iraq posed animminent threat to its neighbors and that Saddam Husseins regime hadto be removed for both security and moral reasons.

As the administrations case for warwas gradually exposed as a fabrication and the botched nature of theoccupation became clear, most of these liberals have admitted they werewrong.

No such admissions of error, or evenregret, have been issued by outspoken Catholic neoconservatives who,using the most tortured just-war arguments, publicly defended Bushswar of choice. Michael Novak, of the American Enterprise Institute,even flew to Rome to persuade the Vatican not to oppose the invasion.In First Things, George Weigel, of the Ethics and Public Policy Center,memorably lectured religious leaders on the charism of politicaldiscernment enjoyed by those in the White House (Moral Clarity in aTime of War, January 2003). It was a charism, Weigel pointedly wrote,not shared by bishops. He assured the wars critics that electedofficials are more fully informed about the relevant facts."

Read the whole thing.