Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

Andrew Sullivan is very articulate in making a point I have tried to make repeatedly in the past: EVERYBODY was convinced that Saddam had WMD.

BUSH DIDN'T LIE: I'm sympathetic to the president's case that he was not the only one who supported war against Saddam because of the threat of WMDs. The consensus at the time - and it was shared by opponents and supporters of the war - was so overwhelming that Saddam's WMDs were a premise of everyone's case, pro and con. Maybe Scott Ritter and Baghdad Bob get a pass on this. But not many others. Nevertheless, all the rest of us were wrong. Were we lied to? I see no reason yet to believe we were - in the strong sense that deliberate untruths were consciously uttered. Was the post-9/11 atmosphere sufficient to blind many people to the possibility that they might be wrong about this premise? Certainly, that's the case for me. I wasn't skeptical enough. I followed the groupthink. I shouldn't have. It's also true, I think, that in the effort to ensure that the CIA was doing its job, some around the veep's office and elsewhere may have seized on materials of dubious, if not discredited, validity. In retrospect, they were not skeptical enough either - and they have a much higher responsibility in this respect than bloggers or even Democrats who do not have full access to the full intelligence.

One point Sullivan neglects is that it is also possible that the the US and the West were the victims of both Saddam's posturing to gain power and an aggressive disinformation program conducted by the Iranians (including Mr. Chalabi).