InstaPundit links to this post from Roger Simon:
But Krugman must get the demon Bush, using any pretext he can, the WMDs in this case. But let’s give Paul his due. Let’s stipulate, even though we have no way of knowing at this point, the presence of these weapons was exaggerated by the administration; I still say—so what? Saddam’s gone. It was worth it. And I ask Krugman this simple question: What if some leader had used a similar ruse to get rid of Hitler in 1940? What would he think of that?
Prediction: We won’t be hearing a Krugman answer to that one any time soon.
and adds "That's a safe one, I think.".
Ah, but I'll answer, despite being no fan of Krugman. Let's say we had used a similar ruse to get rid of Mussolini in 1938, and it was exposed as a ruse. Then we tried to use the same ruse to get rid of Hitler in 1940. Would that then be easier or more difficult?
Credibility is expensive. I suppose the case could be made that Saddam was worth that price. But I don't think it's clear-cut. Expecially if someone worse than Saddam emerges from the woodwork.