I happened to be listening to the Thom Hartmann program on the radio, and he asked people to call in to try to justify the decision to go to war in Iraq. Caller after caller did nothing more than recycle the same talking points we've heard since 2002:
1) Support for terrorism
2) Weapons of Mass Destruction
3) Brutal dictatorship
4) Destabilizing force in the Middle East
These are also the same reasons given to justify our continued presence, and to justify our aggressive posture toward Iran. But during the last 4 years, they've been completely discredited. Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda, and the war has created terrorism. There were no weapons of mass destruction, the region is far less stable, and the people of Iraq were better off under Hussein than under the incompetent, thuggish rulers they now have.
You'd think that in the course of the last 4 years a person would have had to either change positions on whether we should have invaded, or come up with a new justification. But as far as I can see, there's been no evolution at all in the position of the warhawks. Their minds seem completely impervious to the facts.
So my question is this: have you heard any new justifications, either for going to war or for staying, since the invasion? Or did the warhawks just send their brains on a 4 year vacation?