It's so frustrating sometimes arguing with the left.

One thing is that many of them don't recognize their views as originating from the left. They'll advocate all kinds of positions I hear from the left (anti-Iraq war, evil global trade conspiracy, cutting taxes is bad, etc, etc) but then express surprise when I imply those positions are left-leaning ones.

Another thing is that I hear the same narrative over and over from them. I heard the bit about the Downing Street Memo mentioned in the news a few weeks ago. When I heard the supposed-to-be breathtaking relevation that according to a British source, Bush had already decided, in July 2002, on war, and that they said they were "fixing" the intelligence to support a WMD argument, it sounded like an obvious red herring, for three reasons:

(a) It sounded to me like the guy's opinion -- and I'm not sure how a low-level UK functionary would be privy to such a thing if it really were a secret, and (b) "fixing" could mean anything, including repairing, or gathering more intel. Even if it were all true, the way it was spun: (c) So what? I thought military action was probably necessary back in the 1990s -- as did many prominent US Democrats and Republicans. Was I supposed to suddenly think the idea was now reprehensible, in the wake of a 3,000-dead wake-up call on the dangers of rogue regimes?

So I figured this would come to nothing, as at least two of the arguments were obvious, unless further data came to light, and dismissed the matter.

Not so fast. I kept hearing it: That memo proved there was no WMD. That memo proved there was no WMD. So I read the stupid memo. It took about 30 seconds to find it and read it.

And you know what it says? It mentions WMD all over the place, as if everyone was absolutely sure Saddam had it. Examples:

"Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD."

"For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."

True, they don't believe Saddam had much WMD capability, for offensive uses, but they seemed to think he had enough to plan around.

In addition, just as I suspected, reading the rest of the opening indeed clarifies that the view that military action was decided was speculation:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable."

Is this so difficult? This is hearsay, a guy repeating another guy's assessment of someone else's "attitude" -- emotional tea-leaf-reading, predicting future events from "perceptible shifts" in feelings, not outright statements.

So all it took was a cursory reading -- on especially the WMD issue -- to see that the subjects of the report DID believe Saddam had WMD. But people don't check -- they run off, repeating everything they're told, as though the media has never misled them, never made a mistake, and never lied. As though everything they're told is 100% true.

And of course, this raises the question of how the media could have missed that. What an interesting error to have made.

Look, I understand some opposed the war. But do we have to be so dishonest in order to make that case? And when are people going to start being angry that the media is deceiving them over and over? I guess never, because so many apparently love the lies they're being told. The decision has been made, and now we're in search of the data to prove it. Anything'll do.