For John, BLUF: Turns out that Bush and Blair did not lie about WMD. The Intel was wrong and they believed it. Nothing to see here; just move along.
From Yale Law Professor Stephen L. Carter we have this article on reviewing the intelligence on WMD♠ at the run up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. His lede:
Remember the debate about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction? It’s back for an encore, thanks to Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, who remarked at a hearing recently that whatever went wrong in the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi disaster, it wasn’t as bad as the Bush administration’s insistence that those weapons existed.Key paragraph:
One of my favorite historians, Andrew Roberts, insists that Corera’s research “explodes that myth completely.” That seems to me too strong. Rather, Corera offers a nuanced perspective that should serve as corrective to some of the sillier conspiracy theories that still abound. His account is unlikely to convince all the doubters, but should be studied nonetheless for the lessons it carries—lessons to which President Barack Obama and his administration should pay close attention.But, perhaps aren't.
Regards — Cliff
♠ Once upon a time WMD meant nuclear weapons. Then the Soviet Union convinced the United States to include Chemical and Biological weapons. Today, thanks to the thoughtlessness of the US Congress, it is any not so big chemical explosive bomb.