How Jim Henley has the patience to still do thisÂ is beyond me. I’m not going to waste my time on the WMDersÂ anymore, because they’reÂ not arguing in good faith. For instance, in the comments beneath Jim’s post,Â some guyÂ writes:
Of course, anti-war folk â€” if not Jim â€” were sometimes saying that one should not invade Iraq because Saddam might use WMDs, that, er, ahem, did not exist.
I’d sooner try to convert Osama bin Laden to Buddhism thanÂ “debate” this hack.Â Let’s see: Antiwar people didn’t think the war was justified to begin with, because “WMD” or not,Â Iraq posed no threat to the U.S.; they sniffed something mighty piscine in the WMD claims the administration made; theyÂ wondered aloud how anyone who believed said claims could be soÂ gung-ho about hurling American teenagers at Baghdad.Â Oh, the contradictions!
Another comment, by Jon Henke, is even more demonstrative of bad faith, if read closely (emphasis mine):
For the record, I did cite numerous potentially exculpatory explanations like â€the documents could be (1) fraudulent, (2) in reference to legal chemical/biological programs (i.e., medical research, agricultural development, etc), (3) produced to deceive the bureaucracy and Saddam about the extent of operations.â€
I must ask Mr. HenkeÂ whether he notedÂ such exculpatory possibilities prior to the invasion, or if he, like the rest of his brethren, screamed “DUAL USE! DUAL USE!” about every aluminum tube andÂ batch of vaccine in Mesopotamia. If, in a moment of charitable weakness, you think the WMDers are/were merely misguided, remember “dual use,” the catchall lie behind this whole rotten enterprise.Â The war partyÂ deniedÂ the falsifiabilityÂ of itsÂ WMD thesis by declaring all technologyÂ aboveÂ the level of the wheelÂ suspect. They consciously riggedÂ Iraq’s wheel of fortune to always land onÂ “Attack.”Â And for that, theyÂ deserve no presumption ofÂ honesty or, for that matter, innocence.