[atlaw]

"This war is not about "freedom" for the Iraqi people. I understand Pres. Bush has to "sell it" this way, but the fact is this is about OUR national security and REMOVING sources of support for terrorists. This is simply too harsh for most of the public to hear, and the admin has softened it by emphasizing removing Saddam, downplaying the AQ connection, playing up the WMD connection."

Wow. So, the war was actually "sold" to the public on the idea that Iraqi WMD were a threat to our national security, because a war based on the idea that Iraqi terrorist connections were a threat to our national security was "too harsh for most of the public to hear," even though most of the public actually heard that one of the justifications for the war was Iraqi terrorist connections. And then Iraqi "freedom" was thrown in with the WMD threat to soften the sales pitch, and the Iraqi terrorist connections that the public had already heard about but couldn't handle were "downplayed" so the public wouldn't be frightened.

I'm really glad you're not in charge of the White House information office.

[LS]

Nope. Didn't say that. I said that the terrorist threat was what the war was all about. Did I mention WMDs? The threat was there, and, in my mind, still is. The war was "sold" on the basis of a threat to our national security (CORRECTOMUDO and as a preemptive strike to get WMDs out of the hands of terrorists again, CORRECTOMUNDO. But Americas do understand the language of liberty, and just as the war vs. Nazi Germany was not based so much on "getting" Hitler as it was "liberating" Europe, we use the rhetoric that is available.

But you can use whatever justification you want. The war was right, and the side effect of liberty for the Iraqis is good.