It’s over. Quietly, without fanfare, and with no recriminations, the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has gone the way of OJ’s hunt for the “the real killers.”

Some may say that putting it that way is a bit cynical and unfair. That’s not completely off-base. My apologies, OJ.

At least you’re sticking to your story.

Interestingly, the White House said today that “based on what we know today, the president would have taken the same action.” Fair enough. But the words might have been a little different. In the interest of setting the record straight, I’ve taken the liberty of going through some of the president’s pre-war speeches and making subtle alterations so we could see what the run-up to war might have looked like had we known (changes are inboldface). So let’s look at, for instance, the 2003 State of the Union Address:

_________________________

“Today, the second gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation. But graver still is the threat from utterly weaponless nations who are mean to their own people…

“Nothing to date has restrained [Saddam] from his pursuit of these weapons — not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. Okay, in fact, those things have restrained him completely. But still, you get my point.

“The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq’s regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. If you discount the fact that all of this has happened, nothing like this has happened…

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein has not in fact recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes that are completely unsuitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities, or at least not in a way that amounts to admitting that he’s doing those things that he is not, in fact, doing. He clearly has much to hide, but it ain’t weapons. He doesn’t have those, really. But he’s hiding something, that’s for sure.

“The dictator of Iraq is not disarming, at least not on a personal level. Actually, he’s a little annoying and lacks ‘people skills.’ To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are not at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, not sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses into saying that there are no WMDs. Which is true, but these people look really intimidated when they’re saying it. That’s just not right.

“The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies, nor will we accept a regime that is not a threat but really pisses us off. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq’s ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present questionable information and intelligence about Iraqi’s legal — Iraq’s illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups. But it’s not important. These weapons are only a secondary reason, after all. Not the real thing. Freedom, that’s what’s important. Yesirree. Freedom and Liberty.

“We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, or even if he does, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. And I think you know what I mean by “disarm.” I mean “make him stop mistreating his own people.” That’s what “disarm” means in this case.(Applause.)”

_________________________

That’s better, isn’t it? It’s pretty persuasive, and it’s still a rousing speech. You can play this game at home: Just go to the White House website and call up any speeches made between the autumn of ‘02 and April of ‘03. You can submit your alterations in the Comments section. Think of it as your patriotic duty to set the record straight. And by “straight” I mean “in accordance with what would have been nice.”