I was not incorrect about this at all. What I said was that nobody was talking about the "greater objective" in the context of the war in Iraq. It's important to remember that the quotes you presented are from the 2002 State of the Union address, not the 2003 address that was made only two months before the war began. If the address you cited had been given in 2003 instead of 2002, a lot more people may have recognized the rationale for war in Iraq for the hoax that it turned out to be.
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."
"And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation."
"And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom."
Although I know your opinions are set in stone, others may happen across our little exchange of posts, and perhaps some of them will have open minds.
That would be me.
I understood quite well from the beginning that what President Bush was attempting to do was nothing short of Grand Strategy, that he was not, as Foggy Bottom has advocated for several generations, content with the staus quo in the Arab World, but saw that the only breakthrough would be one of enormous risk, that of helping to nurture, as we did in Japan, a free and democratic Iraq which would stand as a model in the Arab world.
I am mature enough and steady-willed enough to allow some time for this venture to mature. The fact that the Kurds have a thriving democracy in their enclave in the north, gives me reason to hope. The fact that the Iraqis have generally rejected the theocrats who have stood for election in the numerous municipal elections that have already taken place, also gives me hope.
Rome wasn't built in a day, as they say. What President Bush is risking here is of the same order that President Reagan risked, that a region of the world can break out of tyranny and move toward freedom. It's too early to say whether this risk will succeed or fail. But I'd rather give this "strategery" a chance than stick with the old failed policies of the Arabists at Foggy Bottom who just live for stability.
I was not one who was "hoaxed" by this war. Perhaps you were.