Reply #18: Very good question....

[CoffeeCat]

If a politician could cogently speak about this administration's ever-changing rational for fighting this war--we could make them look even more insane than they currently do.

1.) First-----we were supposed to oust Saddam because he was a horrible leader who used WMD on his own people--and he may use them on us.

2.) Then----after it became apparent that the WMD was nonexistent--we were supposedly spreading freedom to the Iraqi people. We were bringing democracy to the world and enveloping Iraq in a big ol blanket of peace and warm fuzzies.

3.) Now----we're fighting the terrorists.

The rationale for war in Iraq has evolved. What a crock! Did the rationale for our purpose on WW2 evolve?

This administrations' ever-changing rationales are bad enough. However, if you look closely at their reasons for war---it's evident that we've majorly farked up the entire war.

Initially (#1) there was NO insurgency. No car bombs. No violence. The IRaqis could get to the market without the risk of being blown up. The road to the airport was moving along fine. Running water and electricity was abundant. Our rationales tell a story. We have destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and we have created all of this violence.

It's total crazymaking. As the violence has grown--we have used that very violence--which we caused--to justify our presence in Iraq.

It's just insane.

Oh hell. What was the question?