And while I too was glad to see this argument in print, where millions would read it, my second thought (there always is one) was that it is ridiculous to suggest that Bush and co. COULD have just levelled with the world about motives.

I can picture it now: "We've concluded that the only way to derail Islamofascism is to shake up the entire MidEast; moreover, the only way to shake up the region is to scare the crap out of its leaders by pummelling one of its worst badasses. We've selected Iraq for the honor. Rummy, take it away!"

I could think of clever euphemisms and diplospeak for some of this, but if the message were to be clear it would have been far too provocative for anyone (except, apparently, Friedman and a few of us blog-hawks) to take. Honesty is NOT always the best policy. We said and did what we had to do, and now the truth can be revealed by "clever" journalists and columnists. I don't mind. I just don't see how it could have been otherwise.

Your point about honesty is a valid one. Clearly, in democracies, politicians have to sell the public on war and it can be hard to persuade the public about hard realities. I don't mind that the Administration made the WMD argument because, despite my commentary about the failure to find them being embarrasing, I do think they thought they would find them.

I would have made the war on terrorism the central focus of the argument and also talked about the awful condition of the people in Iraq and WMD, rather than reversing the emphasis.

*sigh*

I don't think we have to be bound by our past. Just because different leaders in a different era acted badly doesn't mean we have to continue along that path in order to demonstrate consistency. During the days of the Cold War, we often made the mistake of believing the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We supported Saddam against Iran because we thought Khomeini's Iran a greater threat and, even if we had wanted to stop the Iraqi genocide, we weren't very well going to risk war with the Soviets to do so. Now, absent the Soviet counterweight and, hopefully, somewhat wiser, we can act differently.

Friedman isn't saying that we hit Iraq simply to hit someone but rather that it was important that we strike against a major rogue regime in the region that supported terrorism. Iraq, Saudi, and Syria all qualified and we judged Saddam most invasion-worthy. I think we fought the war for all four reasons Friedman mentioned and then some, including WMD; I just think WMD was #4 or lower on the list.

there's far less evidence of Iraq supporting terror than of it having WMD. It supported Palestinian terror to an extent, but that really is a seperate issue. In contrast there's much more evidence of Saudi especilally sponsoring terror. So I don't think terror links were a big reason. (Maybe percieved terror links, and the need to make the US public feel safe...).

And still: the moral case for war is based on things Iraq did when we supported them. Of course we should now change our ways, but punishing them retrospectively is not moral!

Nor did we ever arm Saddam.

We gave him some support in his war against Iran, for strategic reasons. We did it with some loathing and disgust, with the wish that both sides would lose that war.

Let's be very clear then: morally, there was no justification for opposting taking out Saddam, and those of you who did oppose it should be ashamed of yourselves.

But Kelli has it absolutely right: of the reasons for going after Saddam, it would have been insane to state them openly. It would have hampered our war efforts and drawn us even more opposition internationally.

Besides, the WMD argument was real. It always was. We had evidence that he had them, and we knew he was giving support to Middle Eastern terrorist groups. He would not need a lot of WMDs to pose a threat--just the ability to make them and supply them in sufficient quantities to make terrorists a threat.

Dean, you're not attempting to convince me, or arguing, you're just saying I'm wrong, without providing any evidence or dealing with the points I have raised. It's clear that the administration had several reasons for invading Iraq, of which it told us a few. Why not tell the truth if there's no reason to oppose the war?

Oh and hey, did you see this? Wolfowitz goes mad: tells truth.

---