(1) If a government actively supports al Qaeda, the United States should depose that government by force. (premise, per the “Bush doctrine”)
(2) In 2003, Iraq was actively supporting al Qaeda. (premise, per smoke and mirrors)
(3) Therefore, the United States should have deposed the government of Iraq. (1, 2, modus ponens)
As problematic as it may be, let’s grant (1) for the moment. Now, we know that this argument is unsound, since (2) was always false. But we can replace (2) and run the argument again:
(1) If a government actively supports al Qaeda, the United States should depose that government by force. (premise, per Bush doctrine)
(4) In 2008, the government of the United States is actively supporting al Qaeda. (premise, per Hersh)
(5) Therefore, the United States should depose the government of the United States. (1, 4, modus ponens)
The two counts, in case it isn’t clear, are a) that “al Qaeda” is and always was an ambiguous term, such that basing military invasions on connections with the same is/was a weird idea; b) the US should quit supporting fundamentalists in its bid to quash fundamentalists. You’d think we would’ve learned our lesson in Afghanistan.