>>>>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?
>
>Mike, if you think the Iraqi invasion was in any way, ever, about Iraqi freedom, you are even younger than I thought. Now that the grand jury has heard all the testimony and indictments are coming out, lips are loosening. And the clear picture that emerges is that a small cabal behind the amiable dunce -- people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, and Rove -- were bound and determined to invade Iraq. They weren't interested in facts and actively tried to suppress facts that were inconvenient to them. These bozos have led us into a disaster of the first magnitude. What I don't understand is how they managed to do so with the blind support of so many who supported the war (and continue to support it despite all evidence) simply because they see themselves as conservative Republicans. What dupes.
>
>JOMO....

If all that is true, why do you think they wanted to invade Iraq? If you say it was for oil, then you are even younger than I thought.