Paul Wolfowitz appeared on Hardball last night. Excerpts appear on MSNBC's website, and reveal how much the deputy defense secretary grasps at straws to justify the war in Iraq.

Regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, for instance, Wolfowitz now states: "No one doubts that [Saddam] had the capacity to build them." If the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction is now a cause for war, should we invade MIT and jail half its student body? No evidence uncovered thus far shows that Hussein possessed the vast amounts of WMD that Wolfowitz and others argued that he had before the war, so the rationale for war has shifted from the likelihood that Hussein would use WMD against the U.S. to simple possession of WMD to the capacity to build WMD. That's weak.

Wolfowitz continues: "And you have to remember, there was time to move and hide stuff, and there was systematic looting that went on right after the fall of Baghdad." Iraqis are incapable of defending their country from invasion, but we are supposed to believe that their skills at hiding things--in this case, weapons of mass destruction--is legendary.

If Wolfowitz's assumption of hidden stockpiles of Iraqi WMD someday proves correct, the question remains: if Hussein didn't use chemical or biological weapons against an invading U.S. military force, what plausible scenario exists in which he would have used them against the U.S. mainland?

After 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz argued that America should forgo invading Afghanistan in favor of toppling Saddam Hussein. He was wrong then. He is wrong now.

You know the "mainland" comment is a canard. Who ever mentioned "mainland" - conjuring images of terrorists making the trek across oceans.

Actually Mike, George Bush did. In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush stated: "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."