So, the reason for taking the war on Iraq, according to Prez Bush
was to fight terrorism. The rationale goes that the best strategy for
combatting terrorism is to create democracies. So, really, the real
reason for the Iraq war was to create a "democracy".

As for WMDs and the imminent threats scenario, we know now that the
administration, even in 2002, were skeptical about the strenght of the
evidence. I guess selling the public on the notion of "imminent threat"
was a heckalot easier than selling the public on the notion that the
road to terrorism-free world is to induce "democracies" with U.S.
military might.

A word about these "democracies". It would be profoundly arrogant to
believe that we can impose our ideological experiments of laissez-faire
free-market big-business-driven capitalistic "democracies" on any
people. It is this very imposition that undermines the liberal and
progressive movements of Islamic nations. It is this very arrogance
that robs reformers of any credibility when they talk of authentic
representative government.

Why doesn’t Kerry call Bush on on this is beyond me. This is the
sort of neo-con double talk that makes me wonder if the stuff of
fiction has found a home in the 21st century.