Devon Largio, known over at dailykos as Trix, completed a research project entitled Uncovering the Rationales for the War in Iraq: The Words of the Bush Administration Congress and the Media from September 12, 2001 until October 11 2002. It is, as far as I can tell, the only research project of its kind. Largio sifted through thousands of statements, speeches and articles in an attempt to document all of the rationales that were used in order to justify invading Iraq between September 11th and the Senate vote to authorize the use of military force against Iraq on October 12th, 2002. Were it that any of the research I have done in graduate school were of remotely the same importance as hers!

Largio separates her research into three distinct periods, each with different primary and secondary justifications taking prominence. In a summary near the end of the piece (starting on page 152), she breaks down the frequency that each of the twenty-seven rationales were used during the entire thirteen month period:

The five primary reasons

• The war on terror
• Prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
• Lack of inspections
• Removal of the Hussein regime
• Saddam Hussein is evil

Three nearly primary reasons

• Liberation of the Iraqi people
• Broken promises by failing to comply with United Nations resolutions
• Iraq poses and imminent threat to the safety of the United States

Secondary Reasons

• Because we can
• Unfinished business from the first Gulf War
• Disarmament of all weapons inside Iraq is necessary
• Connection to al-Qaeda
• Safety of the World

Minor reasons rarely used

• History is an ideal directive that commands us to invade Iraq
• Revenge for attempting to kill the first President Bush
• War will help oil continue to flow westward
• Iraq is a threat to the region
• Iraq is unique since it the most serious threat to the world
• Preservation of peace by invading Iraq and thereby preventing Iraq from invading others
• By oppressing its people and threatening others with terrorist acts, Saddam Hussein's regime is a threat to freedom
• Stimulation of the economy ala WWII
• Preserve the relevance of the UN by enforcing its resolutions
• Commitment to the safety of our children
• Gain favor in the Middle East by protecting other countries form Saddam Hussein
• Send a message to other rogue states by making an example of Iraq
• Saddam Hussein Hates the US
• Iraq is in violation of International law

This is the breadth and the totality of the hawk argument before the war. As you can see, "liberation of the Iraqi people" was not even among the five most commonly used reasons, much less the top reason. That, however, is what the majority of hawks are now focusing upon.

Of course, for them liberation appears simply to mean voting for a council that will then elect the true governing body, since fear of death and violence has actually increased dramatically, and the role of women in Iraqi society has been significantly hamstrung. If this is what they want to hang their hat on now, just wait a few months. With twenty-seven rationales for war, you seem to be allowed to pick and choose at your want which one was the real reason. Back in June I wrote a rebuttal to each of these twenty-seven reasons. Or, I could just ask my push poll quesiton:

Do you support Senator Blank's policy that calls for an invasion of Saudi Arabia to overthrow the oppressive monarchy there so that in two years, after 1,500 American soldiers are dead, 11,000 American soldiers are wounded, tens of thousands of civilian deaths have been caused, $300 billion American dollars have been spent, Saudis are able to hold elections where a fundamentalist Islamic government allied with Iran is elected to power in a landslide?