I think it is pretty much understood by anyone visiting this or other like bloggs that the Iraq war was a political tool, just like any and everything else BushCo does. The fact is that a large portion of Americans do not care.
They brush everything off as "politics as usual" and go on with their life, hoping for the best, ignoring the rest.

I agree with T2. The public tends to ignore foreign policy as much as it can. The question is, how can such egregious foreign policy gaffes be avoided in future? * Congress basically ceded its power to wage war with the War Powers Act in the '60's. That was unconstitutional, but indicative, perhaps, of a growing reluctance on their part to involve themselves in military issues at all (outside of stateside funding). The Democrats' lack of suspicion & inquiry on the Iraq gambit where so much was warranted can only be due to this fearful & lazy reluctance. * As for the mainstream media, their profit motive means that they feel they cannot afford to be significantly more interested in foreign policy than their consumers. So they, too, give the executive a free pass on matters international & military, just as the public & Congress do. * I still haven't answered my question, & the ideas I'm coming up with are just crazy. Crazy. Anybody?

This is a debate that should have taken place exactly one year ago. The real reason for this war has always been about 'reshaping the Middle East'. Unfortunately, the Bushies short circuited any such debate by selling the war in terms of a direct military/terror threat from Hussein. Since the invasion the true agenda of this PNAC dominated White House has gradually come to light. Now the critics will be portrayed as 20/20 hindsighters and defeatists. Worse yet, America haters!

"arguing against such regime-changing overreach and support instead a more focused approach"
Funny, there was a candidate in 2000 who said exactly that about foreign military interventions. Does anyone know who it was?

The same guy who talked about smaller government, fiscal responsibility and less interference in people's lives?

Didn't that guy also repeat the importance of being "humble" and bringing dignity to the white house?

T2 --

Who are you calling a "political tool"?

Well, I was speaking of the guy who wanted to be a uniter), not a divided.

Unfortunately, too many American's are sheep. The intelligent questionners need to get their message out and be repetitious about it and keep on task. Bush&Co have the market cornered on propaganda and don't seem ashamed to use it and the sheep keep gobbling it up like grass...

Unfortunately, too many American's are sheep. The intelligent questionners need to get their message out and be repetitious about it and keep on task. Bush&Co have the market cornered on propaganda and don't seem ashamed to use it and the sheep keep gobbling it up like grass...

ooops...

"Professor Jeffrey Record, a former aid to Sam Nunn"

Really folks, do we have to think that hard to figure out what this guy's motivation is here? A former aid to a democratic senator couldn't POSSIBLY have a political ax to grind, could he?

The hedline is very misleading--the war college did NOT indorse this position paper. Claiming that the war college indorsed it because the head of the college didn't "distance" himself from the paper, is a classic first-year law school mistake.

Of course, I wouldn't expect anyone from the Washington Post to have the intelligence to figure that one out. Then again, maybe they did and they just don't care, because it does further their liberal agenda quite nicely, doesn't it?