Bush Again Changing Rationale for Iraq War?

Let's see how many reasons Bush has given for the United States going to war with Iraq. First it was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction because Saddam might give such weapons to terrorists. Never mind that there was no record of any co-operation between Iraq and al-Qaeda or that no Iraqis had been involved in the horrible events of 9-11.

Then, when we found out that there were no weapons of mass destruction, the rationale for the war was to establish a democratic Arab state in the middle-east that would apparently serve as a model for Arabs and serve as an ally of the United States. Never mind that no one bother to find out that if Iraq was a democratic state whether it would actually become an ally of the United States or whether a democratic state could exist in a society where there were sectarian tensions between two or three large groups of people.

Now, after we see that, yes, the Iraqis aren't going to get along with each other and are fighting a civil war, the rationale given by Bubble-Boy changes again. Now, according to a statement quoted in the Washington Post, "Our main enemy is al-Qaeda and its affiliates". Of course, we won't mention that al-Qaeda is in Iraq because we went there in the first place.

Successful wars are fought by America when the goals are very clear. Can anyone imagine FDR coming up with three rationales in four years for WWII? He didn't need to because everyone knew what the goals were and, more importantly, how those goals related to American security. Bush either didn't have a clear goal when he started this mess or he was lying about his real goal, or both.

Second point about successful wars fought by the United States: someone else started them, not us. Unsuccessful wars are fought by the U.S. when we intervene in someone else' fight, as in Vietnam, or when we start the fight, as in Iraq. You would think that someone would have pointed this out to BB before now, but then, thanks to the Bush administration, the media, and yes, a lot of Democratic politicians, we never had a real debate about a war with Iraq.

You can read the whole Washington Post article by clicking here.