Obviously, everyone who favored the war would be gratified to hear the news we’ve found huge storehouses of terrible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And, of course, everyone (okay maybe not everyone, but lots of people) who opposed the war would be disappointed to hear the same news. But it’s important to keep in mind that the singular focus on WMD — to the extent there was one — was as much the product of the media and opponents of war as it was the administration’s argument. Time and again, the press wanted to simplify a complex issue to a single rationale. Time and again, the opponents of war wanted to reduce a multifaceted argument into a single soundbite because that would be easier to knock down. This was a point I brought up several times in various columns. For example, from my March 17 column:

Just Sunday on Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked Dick Cheney, “What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?” It’s a perfectly fine question in and of itself, but it underscores the media’s preoccupation with bumper-sticker arguments and the administration’s desire to provide them. Time and again interviewers ask “what is the best argument for war?”
Well, why should there be only one argument? There’s not a single major decision we make in our own lives that we base on a single variable. If you’re trying to decide on a college, you weigh geography, cost, academics, social life, proximity to reliable keg distributor — all of the important stuff. If you’re buying a car, you consider everything from the price-tag to the MPG to the color. But, because of the sound-bite nature of public debate and the media-culture’s obsession with consistency in all things, we demand a single all-encompassing rationale. (Which is why the administration should have dropped the argument that there was a direct 9/11-Saddam link a long time ago).
The reality is that this war is justified because of a long checklist of justifications. Iraq has defied 17 U.N. resolutions. Saddam would rather starve his people under containment than abide by them. September 11 shattered confidence in deterrence. America’s prestige and credibility require following through on our threats. Saddam tried to assassinate the first President Bush. We condemned tens of thousands of Iraqis to death on the false promise that we were going to liberate them the first time. And so on. You may think some of these arguments are irrelevant or even outrageous. Others you may think are essential and persuasive.