I do think it's funny how none of the apologists even mention WMDs anymore, and Rumsfeld acts like people are talking crazy when they even ask him about them.

But anyway, Operation Iraqi Freedom or whatever it's called was always about any- and everything but Iraqi Freedom. Iraqi freedom is a side effect, and a welcome one -- and it is possible that, because we're not nearly as big or tough or self-sufficient as our ideologues thought, the net result will indeed be an internationally brokered movement toward real Iraqi independence and maybe even democracy, and that would be a great thing. But that's not why we did this, and it's not even what we're trying to do right now, except as circumstances beyond our control compel us to.

I'm not a total pessimist, I think some good can and will come of all of it. But it was done badly, for bad reasons, by liars and deluded egomaniacs, and the sooner we're rid of the liars and deluded egomaniacs, the better. Ever since I read Kenneth Pollack's case for invading Iraq in Foreign Affairs almost two years ago, I was convinced of two things: that there might be a good case for taking action against Iraq, if it were done well for the right reasons; and that the Bush administration was completely incapable of either doing it well or for the right reasons. I never believed a word they said about any of it, the WMDs, the connections with al-qaida, their concern for Iraqi citizens (if they were so goddamn concerned for Iraqi citizens, why did the exact same crew help keep him in power for so long, even after every civil and human rights group in the world had detailed his killing and torturing?).

A> Al Qaeda? (the catch all terrorist finger target)
B> Saddam Loyalists? (unless they were and are paid handsomely, very few)
or
C> Iraqi Citizens, who are growing in numbers, who are Resisting Occupation?

An Iraqi citizen who opposes our continued occupation is, by your definition, a Werewolf?