Saddam Hussein wanted to make new weapons but his aspirations were dashed by international sanctions, according to a report from Charles Duelfer, the Bush administration’s hand-picked weapons inspector. This assessment contrasts sharply with the case built before the invasion of Iraq when the public was warned that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and could use them at any moment.

Despite Mr. Duelfer’s findings, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are sticking to their rationale that the Iraqi dictator was a threat and had to be ousted. Speaking to reporters outside the White House Thursday, the president said of Saddam Hussein: “He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction and could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies.”

This is significantly weaker than what was said before the war. “If we know Hussein has dangerous weapons today – and we do – does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons,” the president said in October 2002.

Some people might call such a change in rhetoric a flip-flop. In reality, however, situations change and information changes. Based on new information and scenarios, it is reasonable to change policies and practices.

The president and vice president have repeatedly charged their Democratic challengers with using “old thinking.” If new thinking involves distorting evidence to fit a case, painting a rosy picture of the situation in Iraq when the evidence clearly is to the contrary and not preparing for the most likely outcome of that war, then “old thinking” seems far preferable. If new thinking means never changing your mind in the face of changing facts and scenarios, old thinking is enlightened by comparison.

While it is true that if events in Iraq had turned out differently – if there was no more fighting, if electricity and water were widely available – there would be less interest to continue discussing why the war was launched in the first place. However, when a country launches a pre-emptive war, the rationale for doing so must be as strong as possible.

In this case, it turns out it wasn’t. The United States invaded Iraq despite evidence that the country’s weapons program was in shambles. U.S. troops marched on Baghdad even though the bulk of evidence disproved Vice President Cheney’s continued assertions that Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaida and the Sept. 11 plot.

New thinking, old thinking. The thinking was just plain wrong.