So WHY Did We Invade Iraq in Response to 9/11?

"Because Iraq had WMDs and posed a serious threat."

We now know they didn’t.

"Because Iraq had significant operational ties to Al Qaeda."

We now know they didn’t.

"Because a democratic Iraq will spread democracy in the region in order to combat Islamofascism."

Oh, okay. That makes sense, I guess.

Wait a second. No so fast, sparky:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 – When Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other senior American officials arrive at a summit meeting in Morocco next week that is intended to promote democracy across the Arab world, they have no plans to introduce any political initiatives to encourage democratic change.

President Bush started speaking in 2002 about the need to bring democracy to the Arab nations. Since then, however, the popular view of the United States in the region has grown so dark, even hateful, that American officials are approaching the meeting with caution and with a package of financial and social initiatives that have only a scant relationship to the original goal of political change.

(Read more here [subscription required]).

Our international policies are seriously laughable. Just one step above "If you clap real hard Wendy, you too can fly." Is there anyone in government interested in reality? I mean . . . "Mission accomplished"? What WAS the mission? What was accomplished? Where is the peace dividend? What did these people die for, and what did it have to do with THIS:

"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

What do you think?