Tuesday's Wall Street Journal (subs. req'd; alt. free link) also sees Karl Rove lackey Peter Wehner spinning like a top for the Iraq war rationale [we last noted him comparing Bush to Napoleon], but here's an argument he surely should rephrase:
In addition, no serious person would justify a war based on information he knows to be false and which would be shown to be false within months after the war concluded. It is not as if the WMD stockpile question was one that wasn't going to be answered for a century to come.
Besides the asked-and-answered quality to this talking point, note the assumption that the war is in fact "concluded."
UPDATE: Dan Froomkin has more on the same op-ed piece and much more on Wehner's role as a key behind-the-scenes enforcer of Rovian dogma.