Iranian Pride Project

To me the idea of invading Iraq was never nearly as bad as the justification for it. There was merit in deposing Saddam Hussein: First, he was murderous to his own people; Second, he had a tendency to invade his neighbors. But no vague or waffling justification for war can ever be valid. War is something one does when one is 100% certuan, not 51%. And lying about war and peace is a cardinal offense for any leader:

Bush and Cheney told the Congress and told the world that that Iraq had WMDs. The mistake may be forgivable, but acting on it is not. It was never forgivable to play bait and switch over matters of war and piece.

This morning's Washington Post has a similar story. It says: "Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program," according to a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists.

This is amazing to me (not that I have followed the Iran nukes story all that closely. But the idea that one can assert that a country has nuclear weapons or is trying to get them without being certain of the charge seems very dangerous.

The WP report quotes a "senior official" who says, "'The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions.'"

Their conclusion is that Iran's long contention that the uranium traces were the result of contaminated equipment bought years ago from Pakistan is correct. Still, the Bush administration had pointed to the material as evidence that Iran was making bomb-grade ingredients.

That's stunning news in particular and worrisome in general that such weighty matters can be babdied about without extremely solid proof.