Accounting for WMD

In email to the Instapundit, Merv Benson points out that the WMD issue in Iraq wasn't so much that we believed Saddam had huge stockpiles of WMD lying around (though it seems that the CIA did indeed believe it), but that he had failed to account for the huge stockpiles we knew he used to have. He claimed that they had been destroyed, and for all we knew then or know now that may have been true, but he wouldn't or couldn't prove it, and we weren't about to take his word for it, so we invaded (among other reasons) to find out what had happened to them. The fact that we didn't find them, Benson writes, puts us

in the same position as an auditor brought in to find missing money in a bank account. If it is still missing it does not mean that it was a mistake to audit the account.

We still don't know what happened to the missing WMD. Perhaps most of them were indeed destroyed, and the rest were sent to Syria, or hidden somewhere, or were looted after the war, or whatever, but even if Saddam was telling the truth, for once, we had no reason to believe him, and that alone (leaving aside all the other valid reasons) justified the invasion.

This seems to me part of a pattern I've long noticed in the leftist mindset, its willingness to trust people (so long as they are not straight white men), and its aversion to asking for proof, whether it's Saddam, or a person claiming to be eligible to vote, or anyone claiming to have been the victim of a 'hate crime', or to have been date-raped or sexually harrassed. And, of course, if someone who was convicted and served time for a felony, and has not yet 'paid his debt' and had his voting rights restored, and has now admitted to having committed another felony by voting, claims to have voted Republican, he must be believed, because a person like that wouldn't lie, would he?