How did Donald Rumsfeld fight for years to justify a war in iraq, even discussing the need for cataclysmic and catalyzing event?

Donald Rumsfeld was a strong advocate for the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime. He believed that Saddam's regime posed a threat to the United States and its interests in the region, due to its possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and ties to terrorist organizations.

In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Rumsfeld and other members of the Bush administration worked to build a case for the use of military force against Iraq. This included making public statements and appearing before Congress to argue that Saddam's regime posed a threat to the United States and the world, and that military action was necessary to disarm Saddam and remove him from power.

Rumsfeld's involvement in the effort to justify the war in Iraq has been the subject of criticism, as evidence later emerged that the claims about Saddam's possession of WMDs and ties to terrorism were false, and that the invasion of Iraq was based on faulty intelligence and political motivations. Despite this, Rumsfeld continued to defend the decision to go to war in Iraq, and argued that the removal of Saddam's regime was necessary to promote stability and security in the region.

It's worth noting that the issue of the justification for the Iraq War is complex and controversial, and continues to be debated by political scientists, policymakers, and the general public.