Apparently lost to the New York Times in this gushing about how the dangerously incompetent Bush administration made WMD technology available to Iran (thus making America exponentially less safe – although nowhere in the article does it say that Iran has definitively accessed these documents) was the most obvious detail of their story: that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, had the capability for – and was actively seeking – not only chemical and biological weapons, but nuclear weapons, as well.Thrown in almost as an aside, they first hope against hope that Iran didn't access the documents. But if even I have a copy, I'm reasonably sure that the vast majority of intelligence agencies on the planet have a copy. If they don't, there are torrents out there currently active with copies, and those cannot be stopped with today's telco management technology.
The staple of the Liberal platform for the past four-plus years has been almost uniform: Bush lied us into a war in Iraq. Saddam never had any weapons of mass destruction, nor was he seeking any; Iraq was not a threat to America’s security in any way, shape, or form.
This report blows that entire argument, and its corresponding mindset, completely out of the water.
The main point of their argument, however, is that "Saddam had a nuclear weapon's program!" This is the same argument used by Santorum and Weldon to say that 1980s-era chemical shells constituted the reason we went to war. I shouted at RedState, as I shouted at Santorum: "THAT WAS BEFORE 1991. WE INVADED IN 2003." I don't believe there has ever been an argument over whether or not Saddam had WMDs, since we have the receipts for many of them.
Of course, RedState isn't so stupid that they can't tell dates. They are just dishonest.