Two of the foulest reasons used by Bush, Chickenhawks and Warmongers are:
1) When they place the words like honor and noble deaths and scared blood on the lips of the dead and use their deaths to continue the occupation and
2) War is good because the massive destruction and mayhem it causes creates jobs.
Another oft quoted erroneous rationale is the "We're fight'em there so we don't have to fight'em here". Or as Sourcewatch phrases it Taking the fight to the terrorists.
Did we go into into Iraq to free the people from the iron fist of the Tyrant Saddam or did we go to create a sink hole for terrorists to fall into so we could slay them?
As an analogy:
Suppose your neighbor down the street beats his wife and children so you intervene and send in the police to arrest the abuser.
A good act.
But then you leave the police in the house and decide to fight the War on Drugs by inviting all manner of drug dealers in from the neighborhood and allowing them to set up a Meth lab inside the house. Then during the fighting the wife and children you just saved from a brutal tyrant are killed by the dealers or a Meth lab explosion or an errant round from a tac guy.
What did you accomplish?
Of course, I'm giving to much credence to those who believe the Al Qaeda in Iraq stories, usually ignorant Rush Limbaugh listeners or couch-bound commandos who've never been in Iraq. Foreign Fighters never made up more than 5% of the "enemy" in Iraq.
The "enemy" over in Iraq are Iraqis not Al Qaeda. The only Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion was Ansar al Islam a group of 200-300 guys in the Kurdish Northern Watch No Fly Zone, who hated Saddam and lived in the remote moutains. To think we went to war to kill 300 guys is either ignorant or buffonish.
The War in Iraq is a Racket.