Just and Unnecessary War

Geoffrey Wheatcroft in The Guardian discusses why the liberal hawks' reasons for the war don't hold water. Snippet:

"And so the difference is this: with Bush and Blair, the conclusion might be right, but the premises are wrong; with the liberal hawks, the premises are right, but the conclusion is wrong. Most of us accept - as Blair concludes - that force is sometimes necessary. And yet, while there might be good arguments for any war, including this one, the arguments he used could not be good, because they weren't true. Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to this country's security, he did not possess atomic weapons, and he did not back Islamic terrorists."