David Horowitz is at it again ...

... trying to pretty up an ugly, stupid war.

He's an old hand at this sort of thing. He once pounced on an item I'd cross-posted at Conservative Heritage Times under the pen name Harrison Bergeron. I'd pointed out how Bush had invaded Iraq based on feverish tales of Americans being threatened by "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Horowitz bristled at this:

I have been called to account by some conservative defectors from the war on terror. In response to my article on Al Gore's misrepresentation of the case for the war in Iraq, conservative blogger Harrison Bergeron has claimed that "fear of Saddam's WMDs was the primary selling point of [Bush's] invasion and occupation of Iraq." ...

Neither [James] Bovard, nor Bergeron nor Al Gore even bother to explain how the United States could maintain 200,000 troops on Iraq's border indefinitely. Nor do they have an explanation as to what happened to the tons of WMDs the UN inspectors had identified and were unaccounted for.

I'll let readers refer to my original piece linked above to decide for themselves if Horowitz was right. One thing for sure -- Horowitz has no clue who the original Harrison Bergeron really is.

Anyway, he's once more trying to downplay WMD as the reason for launching an aggressive war against Iraq:

WMDs were mentioned of course by administration officials, by Democrats who supported the war, and so forth. The question remains however, in what way were they mentioned and how were they connected to the rationale for the invasion. Thus if Andrew means that the war was fought because the Saddam regime was believed to have stockpiles of WMDS and was by that very fact an imminent threat, he is wrong and his statement is false. There is no statement by Bush to that effect.

Oh, really? How about this news conference Bush gave on 21 August, 2006:

Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq: was -- the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.

I suppose Horowitz will now call Bush a liar, too. And he'd be right, just for the wrong reason.

Why do Horowitz and company continue to defend the invasion of Iraq? Simple: so they can sell the American public on the invasion of Iran.