The Duelfer report's case for war in Iraq

Yes, I know what you're thinking - these guys are f*****g crazy - I'm thinking the same thing, but this is what we liberals have to put up with from the Right. This article in US News & World Report by one Michael Barone says that since Saddam didn't have any WMDs, Bush made the right decision by invading Iraq.

"U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons" read the headline on the October 7 Washington Post. "Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims" read the subhead. But these headlines conceal the real news in the report of Iraq Survey Group head Charles Duelfer. For the report makes it plain that George W. Bush had good reason to go to war in Iraq and end the regime of Saddam Hussein.

You get it prole? The real news is not whether or not Saddam had WMDs or not - who cares about that? - the real news is that he intended to get them at some time in the future. Feel better?

Now, by now we're all used to hearing the tortured logic used by Rethugs to justify their wacky positions, but this one is actually pretty funny. Take the indefensible, and go on the attack - no matter how ridiculous it makes you sound. It'll keep the non-thinking base loyal - it'll keep them from having to take a defensive stance. Hurry up and turn on Fox and Rush to figure out how to answer that pesky liberal at the office water cooler who keeps saying 'Where are the WMDs? Where are the WMDs?'

I'll point out the obvious for those of you who haven't managed to figure out what is so anti-logic about this article, and the Bush/Cheney response to Duelfer's report. We'll start with a simplified premise - one far from agreed upon, but for the sake of argument we'll use it: If there were WMDs found in Iraq, then Bush's invasion would be justified. Ok, there, I said it. I don't agree with it, but a lot of people would. So, if we accept that premise as true, then what would be the opposite of that premise? How about this? If there were no WMDs found in Iraq, then Bush's invasion would not be justified. Makes sense, right?

Ok, so, Duelfer has come back and said 'no WMDs', and Bush/Cheney say 'Awesome! We were right to invade! ' This is problematic, not only because it is obviously dishonest, but because if true, the WMD rationale for the invasion of Iraq becomes completely unnecessary. If Iraq had WMDs, we invade - if they did not have WMDs, we invade anyways. The rationale for the invasion is the invasion itself. In other words, the Republicans did it, so no explanation necessary.

And check this, David Broder, huge Republican shill for the Washington Post, comes out bigtime against Cheney/Bush in this Dallas Morning News op-ed entitled 'No accountability'. His case is that a one-party Washington will continue to be corrupt, unaccountable to US citizens and reality. He's got ample evidence to support his claim, and he mentions a few in the article. Ouch.