>>In none of the above did we even pretend that Haiti, Panama, or Grenada was a threat to the region, much less to us. Here, we did. When it turned out that there was no threat, it became a part of the "War on Terrorism".
>>
>>Sorry, don't buy it.
>
>Neither do I. Especially, there was a large shift in emphasize - first, "we must seek wmd", later, "how fortunate that evil dictator is no longer in power".

I'm not sure why everone keeps saying this.

When I was debating the war before it started, which was years ago, we talked about the Bush Doctrine, the idea that we no longer tolerate the dictators.

This was a major part of the discussion in the lead up to the war, yet most of the anti-war party seems to think it was something that showed up later. (Which is too bad because for a vocal group of people it would be nice if they were aware of the actual debate they thought they were taking part in.) In fact, the WMD claims showed up later when it looked like there wasn't enough support on the idea that democracy would be better for Iraq.

Given the average Joe's inability to really give a shit about Iraqi freedom, maybe lieing about the WMD was the right thing to do, at least inasfar as the world will be a better place for it?