You stone-headed Bushians are really, really missing the point. You have so justified and rationalized things that you continuously spout on, fully in support of a deed of misestimation and extreme violence, an economic drain of magnitude, a level of force and destruction and the ruination of bodies, homes, families, minds and hearts on all sides of the conflict, far, far in excess of necessity. Yet you go around, and around explaining why it seemed a good idea at the time (which it was not)and asserting that everyone was fooled the same way (which they were not) into thinking it was the only possible choice (which it was not) for dealing with a major international problem of grave danger (which it did not do, and which arguably did not in fact exist).

I think Bobert comes back to these fundamental disconnects between your screeds of rationalizing and the simple elements of reality at the time, and your screeds keep assaulting his cognitive filters with unreason, without apparently ever pausing to wonder why you are doing so.

The invasion of Iraq was not a well-thought out act of national defense. It was a political act of gross opportunism and really slimy pools of unwarranted influence, conceived in blind ambition and executed in a miasma of stupidity and misunderstanding. It has only one redeeming aspect to it, the passing of Saddam and the Ba'athist regime. The price is comparable to using an RPG to punish a littering offence in terms of scale. Wake up and smell the humanity, guys.

A