The Red Pill

Arguments for war based on lies?
So some of the information leading up to the Iraq war has been shown to be bad - fabricated even. E.g. the Uranium from Niger. Does that change the conclusion any? No, there was plenty of other solid evidence, and had been for years.

OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today: "Rather than celebrate the overthrow of a tyrant and enemy of America, they are trying to discredit it by retrospectively niggling over the nuances of the argument for war. It's as if they were defense lawyers arguing an appeal on behalf of Saddam, trying to get him off on a technicality.
The Washington Times quotes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as explaining to a Senate committee yesterday: 'The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder. We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light, through the prism of our experience on September 11.'
Rumsfeld is exactly right, and the Democrats will self-destruct unless they grasp the political ramifications of the national epiphany that was Sept. 11. The response that 'Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11,' though possibly accurate, is beside the point--the equivalent of arguing in 1942 that Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. FDR and Truman knew who America's enemies were, but many of their heirs seem not to."