[LS]

There's no spinning, although with your logic it's not wonder your head is spinning. The war always was about AQ and WMDs. End of story. The Bush administration LATER threw in democracy for Iraq (although I think this was part of the big picture vs AQ from the beginning). It's really quite brilliant: if somehow there was no AQ, we had the WMDs, and if there were no WMDs, there was AQ. In fact, we've had lots of AQ and plenty of evidence of WMDs to one degree or another. But liberty for the Iraqis is a PART of the equation, just like "liberating France" was an important, though not primary, reason for invading Europe in 1944.

[atlaw]

"There's no spinning, although with your logic it's not wonder your head is spinning."

My logic? First you say the war was "sold" on the basis of Iraqi freedom (with a little WMD thrown in for good measure) because the threat to national security was too harsh for most of the public to handle.

Then you say the war was "sold" on the basis of a threat to national security -- the very thing you previously said was too harsh for most of the public to handle.

And now you say "[i]t's really quite brilliant: if somehow there was no AQ, we had the WMDs, and if there were no WMDs, there was AQ," and, I suppose, if there's no AQ and no WMD, there's always "liberty for the Iraqis" which you now call "a PART of the equation."

Just what "equation" are we talking about here? The "sales pitch" equation? Seems to me there's a whole lot of "selling" going on. Indeed, the sales pitch today is "now that we're in this mess we have to see it through or we'll lose face," which is true enough, but which doesn't negate the liberal "nation building" nonsense that started the war.

Forgive me if I see all sales pitch and no substance. And forgive me if I still believe that "nation building" is the fool's errand that President Bush said it was when he was campaigning for the presidency.