Wait. You mean we actually went in for regime change, and not because Iraq had WMD? OK, I feel much better know. But if we change our minds, can we get our money (and, uh, blood) back?

It was always about regime change. Obviously different people had different ideas about which aspects of the regime (weapons programs, support and safe haven for terrorism, violations of the cease fire, history of invading neighbors, abuse of the population, cheerleading the 9/11 attacks, attempted assassination of a U.S. president, unsustainability of the sanctions and containment, bribery and corruption of the Oil-for-Food program, etc.) were the most significant. I tend to think you have to take the whole thing together.

Crank, that's fine for you to say now; it wasn't said then. Here we all thought it was about WMD and how Saddam aided and abetted the 9/11 attackers. Now it's about almost everything but. Now it's because they cheered them on after. If that's the bill of goods we were sold, where is the return window?

Daryl,

Can you please point me towards contemporaneous statements made in 2001/2002/2003 saying that we should invade Iraq because of "how Saddam aided and abetted the 9/11 attackers".
I don't remember Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld or any other member of the government making that claim.
Perhaps some talking head on TV or radio did, but that does not mean it was the reason we were given.

I'm not saying nobody in the upper echelons of the government said that was the reason; I just don't remember them saying so.
Please provide evidence of your assertion, and then I'll be happy to concede the point.
Until then, however, I'm going to go with what I remember as being the reasons given for the Iraq invasion.

Freddy

I actually have a life, so I'm not going to respond Freddy to your Sean Hannity form of challenge (he once asked someone to provide an example of something he disagreed with. The guy did, so Hannity said, "Fine, give me a second.." Then a third. After that the guy just started laughing and said Hannity was being ridiculous. So Hannity then claimed a triumph.

You won't find much Freddy in Colin Powel's arguments, since he was all about presenting a case in the UN--realizing later he was duped. Remember his Pottery Barn statement though. Bush and Cheney claimed that Saddam aided and abetted the hijacker on a constant basis; and never refuted the falsehood. You can, of course, remember the reasons for the invasion; your memories, however, are false.

I actually have a life, so I'm not going to respond Freddy to your Sean Hannity form of challenge (he once asked someone to provide an example of something he disagreed with. The guy did, so Hannity said, "Fine, give me a second.." Then a third. After that the guy just started laughing and said Hannity was being ridiculous. So Hannity then claimed a triumph.

You won't find much Freddy in Colin Powel's arguments, since he was all about presenting a case in the UN--realizing later he was duped. Remember his Pottery Barn statement though. Bush and Cheney claimed that Saddam aided and abetted the hijacker on a constant basis; and never refuted the falsehood. You can, of course, remember the reasons for the invasion; your memories, however, are false.

Daryl,

So this is how it works: my memories are false, and your (unproven) ones are correct.

Sounds like impeccable logic to me.

By the way, how is the Hope and Change coming along?
I think it is fair to say that all we have left is Hope, because Change has been thrown out the window.
The One is shaping up to be more like Bush than McCain would ever have been.
I'm looking forward to the intellectual contortions The One's supporters are going to have to go through to approve of his policies when just a few months earlier, they howled in dismay at the same policies when they were authored by GWB.

how Saddam aided and abetted the 9/11 attackers

Daryl, your recollection was wrong - there was certainly discussion about the spotty evidence of collaboration between Saddam's people and the 9/11 hijackers - I think Cheney made a brief reference to it once on Meet the Press - but it was never a big part of the Administration's public push, certainly it was mentioned far less frequently than, say, Saddam's history of abusing his own subjects.

Crank:

You write, "certainly it was mentioned far less frequently than, say, Saddam's history of abusing his own subjects." That was not the focus. You wish it were the focus today, because the WMD rationale was a bust, but the focus in 2002-03 was WMD, WMD and WMD. Saving the Iraqi people from Saddam was not the primary reason, because the Bush administration knew that that reason was not enough for war.

70 percent of the American people thought the hijackers had an Iraqi connection. Where do you think that misinformation came from? It came from the government and a very compliant media.

steve:

1. Bait-and-switch watch: I did not say WMD was not the top public focus. I did say that among the numerous other supporting rationales, there was more said publicly by people in the Administration about several, including Saddam's history against his own people, than about ties specifically between Saddam's regime and the 9/11 hijackers.

2. Um, the Left doesn't really want to get into games about untrue things the public believes. A number of polls have shown that something like a third of the public thinks the US Government was behind the 9/11 attacks. Should I just assume that the Left is responsible for that?

Saddam's regime was the most vocally anti-US regime in the world, and was complicit after the fact - and possibly before - in the first attack on the Trade Center. He'd harbored terrorists who had engaged in prior attacks on Americans. He'd hired terrorists to blow up the first President Bush. He openly financed terrorism against Israel. He openly cheered the 9/11 attacks. And Al Qaeda's stated grievance in the attacks was with the US troop presence "containing" Saddam. It's hardly irrational for ordinary citizens, simply knowing those things, to suspect him of involvement in 9/11.

"A number of polls have shown that something like a third of the public thinks the US Government was behind the 9/11 attacks."

These people, called "911 Truthers", are as wrong as those who think 9/11 was important.

Berto, it's very easy for you to say September 11 was not important....I'm sorry, I can't respond to that rationally, so I'm just gonna stop.

Once more from the top for slow learners like you Crank.

The President of the United States on September 11, 2001 did not want to create a commission to look into how 9/11 happened. He was talked into it (because we all know how "resolute" he is--ha ha ha, remember that old bowl of tripe?).
He then underfunded the commission, stonewalled it, and installed as his Secretary of State a woman who bald-face lied to the commission.
My question to you is why?

He didn't want to be held culpable (The Truthers view) or it really wasn't important enough of a deal to look into.
I'm going with the latter.

Are you a 9/11 Truther, Crank?