Rich may be correct in his theory as to why the war was started. But there are other possible reasons -- some even rational and justified if morality is not a factor. And many will argue that to not do what is necessary for the nation's vital interest is itself immoral.

An at least debatable rational real reason for the war could have been to use a large military presence in Iraq to pressure Iran, Syria and other adversaries in the area, and to attack them if necessary.

It can even be argued that lying to sell a war can be justified; few wars would ever occur if truth were a prerequisite. That is what Leo Strauss, patron saint of the neocons that were obsessed over this war for over a decade, would call a "noble lie," one told for the greater good.

And if this war had been a success, few would have been concerned about the missing WMD or other lies told to start it. It could still have turned into a disaster though, with the hubris of the Bushies causing them to overextend our military in Iran or elsewhere. We may be lucky it wasn't successful.

But whatever the reasons behind it, no failed elective war can ever be justified; it was either a bad idea doomed to failure from the start, or incompetently waged, or both.

So even if -- a very big if -- the Bushies started this war for the right reasons, they can never be forgiven for blowing it so badly once they got it.

But even worse, far worse, is the fact that the fatal mistakes that made the debacle inevitable -- starting it prematurely, with insufficient forces and equipment, and with absolutely no plans for what would come after the defeat of the Iraqi army -- were not the result of simple incompetence or negligence. They were deliberate acts of omission and commission, because they were the only way their war could be sold.

And that fatal mistake has been compounded at every turn, because they have refused to admit to it and attempt corrective action, and through a total unwillingness to govern wisely.

As Rich says, Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction and ties with terrorists were the most logical selling point for a war they wanted for whatever reason.

But they needed more than that; they knew that the public would only support a war that would be easy, quick and cheap, hence all the talk about our invincible military enjoying a cakewalk, our troops welcomed as liberators with flowers and kisses, lowball costs to be paid out of Iraqi oil revenues, etc. They also needed to sell it quickly. Recall early 2003. The UN inspectors were on the verge of providing definitive evidence that Saddam did not have any WMD, and the anti-war movement was fast building up steam. Anything that might delay the start of the war, or cast doubt on its ease, speed and cheapness, had to nipped in the bud.

So when General Shinseki and other qualified military experts said that at least 300,000 troops would be required, not for military victory but to control the country afterward, they had to be squelched. Deploying that number of troops would not only have delayed the start of the war; it would have raised questions about how easy, quick and cheap the war would be, and about the reception our troops could expect.

Dealing with the predictable problems following a military victory in Iraq had been a major part of the contingency plans drawn up by the military since the end of the Gulf War in 1991. The State Department had spent the year prior to the war making detailed plans for post combat operations in Iraq. Both plans were ignored. They had to be; even acknowledging either could have raised questions and threatened the war.

They wouldn't even allow more than a few days delay when Turkey withdrew permission to use its territory, upsetting plans to attack from from the north and south.

According to retiring General Mark Scheid, then chief of logistics for war plans, Dumbsfeld had specifially forbade any planning for what was to come after the Iraqi army was defeated, "He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war." (Washington Monthly, 9/8/2006) http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009469.php

That is the real scandal behind this war, far worse than the lies told to sell it. When faced with the choice of waging the war improperly or losing the opportunity, they deliberately chose to do it improperly.

Many would call it treason.