[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.

[atlaw]

"Did I mention WMDs?"

Trick question, right? I'll say "yes" for 200.

"The war was 'sold' on the basis of a threat to our national security."

But, but, you said: “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."

So what is it? The war was “sold” on the basis of Iraqi freedom, or the war was sold on the basis of national security? I swear, the spinning is making me dizzy.