Steve Tefft, writing in something called The Barnstable Patriot, has yet another op-ed on this topic. He lists all of the improbable things one must believe to think WMD claims were a lie. Most are the same arguments we’ve heard time and again, but I love these:

  • That Congress’s 373-156 vote approving force against Iraq was due to . . . a spell cast by Bush’s renowned public speaking abilities . . .
  • That Bush talked British Prime Minister Tony Blair into going along with the scam, apparently again using his slick skills of persuasion
  • Heh.

    (Hat tip: Kathy Kinsley)

    FILED UNDER: Iraq War, , ,
    James Joyner
    About James Joyner
    James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


    1. Guy Cabot says:

      It’s very apparent Bush’s WMD claims were a lie. Even conservative pundits (WSJ, Krauthammer, den Beste, etc.) are admitting this via a warped notion the ends justify the means.

      Simply, there was no immediate and/or urgent threat to the US from Iraq.

      You can argue that Saddam was a terrible guy and a brutal despot–and that’s certainly true–but that case wouldn’t have swayed the American electorate to favor an immediate invasion. So, Bush lied using lies designed to garner that support.

    2. Kathy K says:

      Those were two of my favorites too. The first one made me very glad I was waiting for more coffee to brew and not actually sipping.

    3. Guy, there’s just no way to believe you. Even if Bush had been lying, there’s no way not to believe in the existence of WMDs, because if Saddam didn’t have them he would have cooperated with the UN inspectors the last time around.

      Why act guilty when you can simply cooperate and keep your country–and your life?

    4. Guy Cabot says:

      Unfortunately, Miss Atilla, the UN inspectors did say Saddam was cooperating. Not to the extent you or I might have liked but he was cooperating.

      Bush was going to invade no matter what Saddam did or didn’t do. Ask yourself: would you unilaterally disarm in the face of a far superior adversay if you knew you’d be invaded regardless?

    5. James Joyner says:


      But, umm, I thought he never had any weapons? How could he disarm?

    6. Guy Cabot says:


      I was answering Miss Atilla with a hypothetical. Her belief seems to be that invasion is required for all who “act guilty.”

      I fear my case is a bit stronger: if he had all the WMDs claimed by Bush and crew–where are they?

      To be honest, prior to the invasion, I thought it inconceivable that Saddam didn’t have some small quantity of proscribed weapons, though I was very confident he didn’t have them in either the quantities or form to pose any sort of real threat to us or our allies.

      Think about it: we haven’t found anything anywhere.

      It’s a pity that Saddam’s 12,000 page report on the status of WMDs (roundly derided by this administration) is turning out to be far more accurate than Bush’s SoTU.