The Butler did it

Remember the Butler report that came out in July, the one that supposedly exonerated Tony Blare (not a typo) and his cronies on Iraq and was held up by the warmongers as evidence that the claims for Iraqi WMDs, even if (grudge, mumble, shuffle feet) they were, well, maybe wrong (still hidden, moved to Syria, mutter mutter) kinda, were based on solid evidence?

They weren't.

Intelligence indicating Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons was "very thin," the author of a critical report on the British government's case for war in Iraq said Tuesday.

In his first public comments since publishing the results of his inquiry in July, Lord Butler said the weakness of a government dossier on the threat posed by Iraq had "come home to roost" as no such weapons had been found.

While repeating his conclusion that Blair and others had acted in "good faith,"

Butler said the government's September 2002 dossier "did not make clear that the intelligence underlying those conclusions was very thin." ...

[Butler] said the dossier prepared by Blair's government on the Iraqi threat pushed the government case to the limits of available intelligence and left out vital caveats.

Which frankly still sounds like deception to me. Even if we do grant that their first deception was self-deception - hardly a reassuring conclusion, I'd say - they followed up by engaging in what amounted to a PR campaign to convince a reluctant public to adopt their view by emphasizing certain "thin" information while ignoring or even concealing doubts or questions. You may say that's standard politics. It still doesn't make it right or honest.