sisyphusshrugged | cool logic

remember back when folks were supporting the war because the people who opposed it were, like, all irrational and stuff?

We now know there were no weapons of mass destruction, and we know that some experts in the U.S. government disagreed, at the time, with the new internal assessments and those presented to the public. And we have been told by bipartisan congressional investigators that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda.

In last Sunday's column, I wrote that, for me, the question of how it could happen that the United States could be taken to war on the basis of assertions that turned out to be false was still unanswered. Several readers responded to this. Most of those who wrote were in agreement, others were certain that the right course was chosen and some felt that still other aspects of this decision hadn't had enough examination.

"We went to war to reduce the number of nations that could hurt us," said one reader. "The only thing Bush did wrong was to worry too much about the number of civilian casualties we might cause. For that reason, he couldn't end the war quickly enough to take out Iran and North Korea, and help the Israelis take out Syria."

Just breathes credibility, d'avvero?