[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.

[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.