Mr. Clueless reviews the arguments for war. His presentation seems a bit like post-rationalization, but its also probable that such a case would not have enjoyed so much political success… Side note: its strange that an argument made before a war is so much different then a case after and that these differences seem politically necessary. Point being: we would not have been able to go to war under the auspices of ‘rearchitecting the middle east’. It took the ‘they are going to kill us with bad weapons’ argument to get folks behind the war.
In the Bush administration and the larger neocon movement, am I witness to great leadership or to a Machiavellian political agenda to rule the world? The answer seems to depend on my mood more than the arguments one side or another makes! Most likely, this is due to the fact that both sides are right.