Looks as if these folks need to get their stories straight. (Thanks to CalPundit for the pointer.)

Since the humanitarian case for deposing Saddam Hussein was reasonably strong, why the continued insistence on weapons of mass destruction in the face of what seems to be accumulating negative evidence?

The quote from the Tory spokesman makes me wonder: If a Democrat were in office and had invaded Iraq — a move, let’s recall, that Bill Clinton supported when Bush made it — would the Republicans be as noisily anti-war as the Tories in Britain are? Many Americans probably aren’t aware of it, but the Telegraph isn’t some sort of left-wing rag; it’s basically a Tory Party organ, in a journalistic system in which newspapers are expected to have partisan identities and to reflect those positions in their news columns as well as in their “leaders” (editorials).

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: