According to Feith, Irak was so dangerous that Bush was more than justified with ordering the invasion. As a result he didn't need do anything other than repeat the original casus belli even in the midst of non-existent WMD and al Qaeda links. So he shoulda just stuck with selling all the threats, both real and imagined, as continuing justification. Everybody knew that democracy development in Mesopotamia, in Feith's words, was a goal, "which may not be readily achievable."
But Honesty and condor have never been the President's strong suite, and of course, these qualities had something to do with how we got into Irak in the first place. And you can't forget the 2004 reelection, too. A man's gotta have priorities.
UPDATE: Botha Golberg has got Brotha Feith's back on this one whether he knows it or not.
I think democracy in Iraq could have waited as we developed liberal institutions and the security they need to survive. And I think an administration with a better communications operation, starting with the communicator in chief, could have trusted the American people with a bit more complexity of argument, both before the war and after.But of course, if Brotha Golberg recollects, the President referred to people who made this argument as racist back in the day.