Via Ackerman at the Plank, this gem from Woodward’s book:
Rumsfeld: “We never–none of us ever believed that [
Biting my tongue for a moment, and putting aside the rhetorical use of the nuclear threat, I have always thought that the conflation of the three pillars of WMD was a bit ridiculous. If an opponent’s military capabilities is a justification for going to war, shouldn’t we be a bit more specific?
UPDATE: Despite the tongue biting and suggestive last sentence, I truly do mean ridiculous in a generic, completely non-partisan/political way. The term WMD simply seems too broad to mean anything constructive. Particularly if we are looking at starting wars over “them”.