>Not really. The tired argument i hear a lot (not from you per se), is the "well we're in it now, we gotta fix it/get it right/more troops/less troops/..." to the exclusion of determining how we got in there to begin with.

But we know how we got here. We created a foreign policy program that aimed to spread democracy.

We chose Saddam's Iraq as a site for this experiment.

The issue we're debating here is why we chose Iraq, what were the true motivations of those involved in the decisions that have been made?

I'm not sure that information is going to be 1) realistically attainable or 2) instrumental in solving the clear and concrete problems at hand.


>In fact, i would guess that you would be a proponent of determining how we really got in there.

I'm a proponent of learning from this experiment, what to do and what not to do.

The question of internal motivations is not entirely relevant to me.

If I saved a drowning child because I wanted to impress my date, does that speak negatively of the rescue?

If Bush started a war and freed the Iraqis to pump up the economy, or open up some oil deals, or distract the public from the Enron scandal, or flex our muscles in front of our enemies, or impress his dad, or any other reason, it doesn't change that the Iraqis are free and their developing nation needs the help and support of every decent country.

You're right that it also doesn't change the fact that Bush lied.

But which issue is addressable?
Which issue is more important?