That said, the anti-war shibboleth about "just war" is just a smokescreen. The United States has never hesitated to take the battle to the enemy, even if the threat was far removed from our own shores. We warred with the Barbary pirates, the Puerto Ricans, the Cubans, the Filipinos, and the Mexicans -- all of which could be considered "wars of conquest" if you broaden the definition enough. So American economic expansionism, backed by American military might, is nothing new.
Even if we concede that our interest in Iraq is petroleum-based, so what? We didn't compel Saddam Hussein to gas his Kurdish countrymen or pillage Kuwait. We allowed him to retain his throne in Gulf War I by establishing monitoring guidelines under a UN resolution whose provisions he promptly defied. Although there is no evidence he has them, there is little doubt he is bent on developing nuclear and biological weapons. Justin seems to think the sole target will be Israel, but it's just as likely that Kuwait, Iran, and the US will fall in his crosshairs.
A war against Iraq, aimed at overthrowing Saddam Hussein, is perfectly legitimate morally and politcally.
It is the latter.
I have no conflict with Raimondo personally, only with his views on the war.
I question Raimondo's motivation because I believe that his motivation -- or, to use an analogous term, his ideology -- provides the key to understanding Raimondo's highly selective treatment of the evidence surrounding the Iraq Question.