Democracy, anarchy — whatever, dude

I understand that the presidential taint-tasters at Powerline are beyond rescue, but is it so unreasonable to expect a trio of hacks at least to agree on some sort of basic narrative about what the United States is supposed to be pursuing in Iraq?

Here’s Assrocket, just making shit up on October 15, 2006:

In fact, as we have often noted, if you listened to any of the speeches President Bush gave on Iraq in 2003 or read the Congressional authorization on the war, every rationale that has ever been discussed is there. And, as I have often said, bringing reform and democracy to the Arab world was perceived by me, and by many if not most of the war’s early supporters, as the most important goal.

And here’s Paul Mirengoff, exactly two weeks later, perhaps researsing his own apology for a US withdrawal, just in case it ever happens:

At the same time, our interest in preventing anarchy seems less powerful than our interest in combatting an insurgency. The latter phenomenon could lead directly to a state within a state which anti-American terrorists then could use as a base of operations against our interests. Anarchy in Baghdad poses no direct threat to our security. To be sure, a resolution of the anarchy that brings anti-American terrorists to power would threaten our security. But that resolution seems unlikely — to the extent that an al Qaeda type element is part of the free-for-all in Baghdad, its prospects aren’t good.

Tomorrow: Scott Johnson explains why constitutional monarchy was really the goal all along.