The 24 September New York Review of Books contains this revealing exchange between contributor Thomas Powers and letter-writer Bob Guldin. What's revealing about it is that neither Guldin nor Powers can accept the idea that the president of the United States actually chooses policies that he believes will better the condition of the United States. Guldin writes:
It's clear by now that neither the facts nor any realistic notion of national interest drove the US invasion. Surely Powers owes us his best assessment of the real motives for war.
Powers's reply goes on for more than 1,100 words. He says that no ulterior motive for war "entirely captures the central idea in the minds of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld." But Powers also admits he has no idea what that "central idea" may have been. And he concludes:
"I don't know what we can do about this."
Here's a suggestion: You could take the elected leaders of a constitutional republic at their word when they say that fundamental American national security interests are at stake in Iraq.