After I read Noah Schactman's reporting on the Wikileaks documents that show the military found a few chemical weapons caches in Iraq, I figured it was inevitable that someone would try to retroactively justify the invasion by saying "we found WMD," as if liquid sulfur mustard produced "mushroom clouds." Glenn Reynolds leaps to the hack challenge. As Whiskey Fire points out, Reynolds doesn't appear to have bothered to read past Schactman's headline, where he would have found this:
An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn't reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.
So, unless Reynolds wants to argue that we invaded Iraq in order to secure "remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War," then no, Bush hasn't been vindicated. If it were only Reynolds, it wouldn't be a problem, but the clowns at FOX News have a similar grasp of reading comprehension.
