Shorter Eric Soskin, Harvard Federalist Society, writing in Ex Parte:
Given that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Bush's official statement to Congress (a certification required by law as a precondition for force), that invading Iraq was “consistent with” a resolution that authorized force against “international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001” wasn't “unambiguously false” but just legalistic and misleading—so why is everyone getting so worked up about it?
I think the guy has a future in the OLC if Bush is re-elected.
[Update (6/22): A read writes to complaint about the "re-". Point taken.]