Michael Barone resurrects the notion that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was justified because of Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs:

One such narrative is, “Bush lied; people died.” The claim is that “neocons,” including Feith, politicized intelligence to show that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction. Not so, as the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Silberman-Robb Commission have concluded already. Every intelligence agency believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and the post-invasion Duelfer report concluded that he maintained the capability to produce them on short notice. There was abundant evidence of contacts between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. Given Saddam’s hostility to the United States and his stonewalling of the United Nations, American leaders had every reason to believe he posed a grave threat. Removing him removed that threat. (emphasis added)

Baloney. Even if you ignore the absurd notion that a hyperpower armed to the teeth with B2 bombers, submarines, ICBMs, nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, etc. is actually threatened by a tinpot dictator with plans to manufacture mustard gas; that’s not the threat that rushed Americans to into a disastrous war.

I have repeatedly noted that the country went to war because of the grave and gathering threat that Saddam was going to nuke the United States if we didn’t invade Iraq immediately. It was so absurd–as if I went around telling people that I was a split end for the 68 Jets–that you have to blame the people who bought the story as much as the ones that sold it.