At the beginning of the Iraq war only 38% of Americans said the war was justified even if Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. When no such weapons were found after the war, 58% of Americans then supported the war. This revision of people's memories of the government's rationale for going to war is as an example of .A. self-presentation.
B. cognitive dissonance.
C. self-justification.
D. self-perception.

Cognitive dissonance

Explanation: Cognitive dissonance transpires when an individual carries two or more mutually opposed notions, impressions or standards of behavior or partakes in an activity that goes contrary to any of the aforementioned and in that case undergoes a feeling of strain and tension for that reason. However, when both activity or notions are not done in the same way to be accurate, the individuals involved tend to do everything within their reach to amend them until they match uniformly which we can see in this case.

Cognitive dissonance

Explanation:

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance occurs when a

person holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, or

participates in an action that goes against one of these three, and

experiences psychological stress because of that. According to this

theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent

with each other, people do all in their power to change them until

they become consistent. The discomfort is triggered by the

person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein

they try to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their

discomfort.

From the above, you'd realize that the American's were suffering from cognitive dissonance because prior to the Iraq war only 38% of Americans said the war was justified even if Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

When no such weapons were found after the war, 58% of Americans then supported the war.(Here, new information surfaces,it clashes with their previous beliefs and their views changes)

the framers of the constitution insisted that federal judges be nominated instead of elected due to their desire to have judges above the shifting whims of the masses.

the hope, whether achieved or not, was that federal judges would only be beholden to the law and that by not having judges be elected, they would be protected if that law dictated an outcome that ran counter to popular opinion.