Thanks, but….

In an unusually forgiving piece about Bush’s position on WMDs, the reporter says the following.

In retrospect it is clear that the weapons did not exist, although they had in
the past, and Hussein had used them against his enemies.

Is it really clear? Later in the article, Mr. Hughes cites Tariq Aziz as saying that Saddam revealed the absence of WMDs to his generals in 2002, which sent morale plummeting. Still, there are several conflicting claims. It’s one thing to say we didn’t find any WMDs, but quite another to assume they never existed, especially when so many Iraqi documents about WMDs are to released over the coming months. It’s hard to tell whether these documents will add to the confusion or answer questions, but at this juncture, assuming with any certainty that WMDs did not exist is simply not a responsible conclusion to make. However, regardless of the actual status of WMDs, concluding that Bush didn't lie is perfectly reasonable.

UPDATE: In another unrelated WMD story, the Wash Post sends up a misleading headline. Captain Ed has the details.