Scott Lemieux notices a lot of people reflecting on Iraq and trying to justify their support for the war based on the idea that they had "WMDs". And since they didn't and they feel they were mislead, their support isn't so bad in retrospect. Scott explains why the "WMD" argument is still an insufficient reason to go to war: Let’s say that Hussein turned out to have something that could be called “unconventional weapons.” So what? 1)Such “unconventional weapons” posed no threat whatsoever to American civilians (even the least apologetic liberal hawks aren’t claiming that Hussein had any ties to anti-American terrorist groups or any independent capacity for deploying weapons abroad). And, even more importantly, 2)the whole “WMD” argument was in itself a massive con. WMD is an umbrella term that conflates the genuinely unique threat of nuclear weapons with many more chemical and biological weapons that don’t have any more destructive capacity than weapons th...
Not the blog you deserve, but the one you need right now