This is a long one, so I apologize, but I need to make up for lost time. Or lost posts. Or something.

One of my lefty friends, Dondo, engaged me over my earlier post on Senator Kerry's position on coalition building in regards to going into Iraq, and in his plans for how he would "finish the job" in Iraq.

The discussion in the comments turned away from coalition building to justification for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein's regime. Don proposed a bet, which you can read in the comments to the above post. I wanted to be well founded in my response, so it has dragged on unanswered for over a week. My apologies to Don for the extensive delay. Many factors have conspired to delay my response, not the least of which is that I'm lousy at research, and therefore I despise conducting it. But I felt it was important not to leave Don hanging any longer than I already have.

Don wanted to direct the discussion in a certain way: he wanted to bet me some smoked salmon for some equivalent Virginia delicacy (Virginia Baked Ham? I can't think of anything from these parts that could match his smoked salmon) over finding justifications for the war that were borne out versus those that weren't.

Don, while I know your offer was made with a pure heart, I'm going to have to decline. I don't like the terms, mostly because we'll devolve into debates over what's true and what isn't, plus I don't accept at least part of the premise.

I looked at the Bush Administration's rationales for invading Iraq over the course of 13 months; from September 11, 2001, up until Congress's October 11, 2002, vote to authorize our invasion of Iraq. I also limited myself to remarks by the President, the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, and the National Security Advisor. I know that some will protest that there are many more spokesmen for the Administration, which I acknowledge. But "The Message" comes from the principals; the press secretaries and Under Secretaries and deputies embellish the message, but The Message comes from on high. I'll even grant that the statements of the underlings do and are intended to spin the media reporting. But there are literally dozens of people who speak with the press on behalf of the Administration, both on and off the record. I have to draw the line somewhere, so I chose to focus on the principals mentioned above.

During the initial months following September 11, 2001, Iraq was mentioned to some degree. Over the remainder of the period in question, the rationales for taking action against Iraq grew. This is understandable, since as the momentum grows, the subject is discussed more and more. Also, as resistance grew, the Administration added more and more rationales.

Now, some will leap on the addition of reasons as a measure of desperation or deception. While that's certainly possible, it's also normal for reasons which had already been considered as justification for action to develop over time. I maintain it's unreasonable to think that everything is going to be articulated from the very start. That's just not the way things happen.

So let's examine the justifications that the principals in the Bush Administration proposed for invading Iraq. First and foremost in everyone's mind these days (although it was not necessarily the primary justification, especially as the discussion began in late 2001), was Hussein's possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. As much as those on the left may harp on the indisputable fact that no stockpiles of WMD have been found in Iraq, we need to maintain a modicum of objectivity here. Hindsight is a marvelous predictor of the past. All of the major intelligence agencies around the world believed that Hussein still possessed these weapons, and the combined weight of intelligence and other information convinced a broad spectrum of political leaders that WMD stockpiles were at Hussein's disposal. Not only Republicans espoused this position; over time, we heard that Democratic luminaries, such as Senators Daschle and Kerry, believed that Hussein retained WMD capabilities.

Accuse me of partisanship (technically not possible, since I'm not a Republican, but I am a conservative with a smidge of libertarian mixed in, so I'll let it slide), but I just can't see the lack of discovery of WMD in Iraq as undermining that rationale for invading Iraq. Everyone who was in a position to know believed Hussein still had them, and for good reason. Hussein was doing his best to make everyone believe that he could unleash unbearable destruction on invaders and neighbors. In order to hold Iran (and most likely, in his eyes, the United States) at bay, he had to maintain the illusion that he could wreak horrors on anyone who challenged him. He couldn't even allow most of his closest advisors in on the reality. This, in my estimation, is the primary reason why all intelligence pointed to the existence of WMD stockpiles.

So Don (and my other liberal Commie pinko friends), you're going to shake your head in dismay, but I refuse to acknowledge that our failure to find WMD stockpiles in Iraq undermines our motivation for invasion. Hussein worked diligently to get the world to believe that he could unleash unimaginable devastation on his enemies. And this leads to the next point.

Under more than a dozen different UN Security Council resolutions in reaction to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the subsequent action to expel them, Hussein was required to prove he had rid himself of these weapons. He steadfastly refused to accede to these demands over more than a decade. Regardless of the conditions within Iraq, his refusal to meet the UN demands over the years justified, in my mind, action to force his removal.

Another consistent rationale for invading Iraq was their role in supporting Islamic terrorists. I won't belabor this point, because at this juncture, you either agree or disagree. But it seems clear to me that, in a variety of ways, Hussein was supporting terrorists. From training camps to payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, Hussein played a key role in Islamist terrorism.

Okay, this has dragged on too long already, so I'll try to pick up the pace. Rationales for invading Iraq included the threat Iraq posed to the region, the need to liberate Iraqi citizens and the need to remove the entire Baathist regime. These points were stated throughout the period in question.

In 2002, the reasons presented as justification for invading Iraq swelled. They included preserving the peace, Iraq's threat to freedom, human rights of Iraqis, the return of prisoners from the 1991 Gulf War, Hussein's failure to renounce terrorism, the harboring al Qaeda operatives, the possession of prohibited missiles, the subversion of the UN Oil-for-Food program (which appears to explain France, Germany, Russia and China refusing to agree to a resolution explicitly authorizing bringing Hussein to justice), and the phrase that was frequently mistaken as a proxy for "imminent," the grave and gathering danger that Iraq presented to the world.

So there you go, Don. It's not exactly what you were asking for, but it's my position on the Bush Administration's rationale for invading Iraq. I still believe strongly that it was the right thing to do. If I were still on active duty, I'd proudly serve in Iraq. I'm exceedingly proud that my son will most likely be serving there in the coming months.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq, along with our allies that supported us, to include the Iraqis who, once freed from Hussein's boot on their necks, joined us in liberating and pacifying their nation, was the right thing to do. My prediction is that, should President Bush be returned to office next month, history will bear out my opinion on the success of our effort. If Senator Kerry is elected (which I've already predicted will not happen), I'm not so sure.

Okay, I've given you Commies a whole grunch of red meat. Dig in!