http://www.iidb.o This isn't remotely funny anymore. The Bush administration deliberately concocted false allegations based on outdated information in order to push their agenda. Iraq was never a threat to the US and barely a threat to any other nation; at least no more so than any other nation is ever considered to be a threat to any other. But, of course, none of that matters. The only issue that matters so far as justifying a ****ing first strike invasion is whether or not they were an imminent threat. The Bush administration said they were when they knew conclusively and incontrivertably at the time that they were not in any way. Not only did the intelligence reports (the then current intelligence reports, which are the only ones that matter) say as much, but the overwhelming majority of the key players involved in the intelligence gathering repeatedly stated that they were not a threat, imminent or otherwise. All of this is a matter of public record and better documented than the Watergate break in and cover up. The undeniable fact is that the Bush administration invaded a sovereign nation and murdered untold thousands of innocent people because it wanted to; it wanted to, among other reasons, in order to establish over fourteen (and counting) tactical bases in the region whose ultimate purpose is not yet revealed, but sure as **** will be soon. The motives are many and various, but none of that changes the fact that we (Americans) are all guilty by association of high crimes against humanity that far outweigh any alleged crimes Hussein may have commited against his own people. Let's not forget that in America we have done and continue to commit remarkably cruel and viscious offenses against our own people, so for anyone still clinging to the final grasping straw of the Bush admin in re the "Butcher of Baghdad" that Russia (or any nation; hell Canada, for that mattter) would have been equally justified in invading us during the sixties, for example, for the way we treated African-Americans. We have gassed our own people; we have nuked our own people; we have used our own people as cannon fodder for unjustifiable wars where millions of either died or been irreperably destroyed in ways that linger throughout the generations. That is precisely why international laws were established that said, first and foremost, no first strike. ****ing MacNamara affirmed the same thing in Fog of War. The analogy is simple and plain; you do not invade a country to kill or oust one leader anymore than you would carpet bomb a city to kill or oust a serial killer that may be hiding out there. Iraq was on Bush's hit list long before 9/11 and the Bush cabal took full advantage of a horrible tragedy in order to radically change America's avowed stance against first strike so that the precedent could be established for future invasions and future first strikes. Period. It had nothing to do with any kind of imminent threat and everything to do with the horrific aftermath of the cult driven sophistry of "manifest destiny." That and the worst trait of humanity, greed. By their actions, it is abundantly clear that no humanitarian reasons were behind the invasion and no consideration of innocent human life (beyond lip service at the highest, most hypocritical levels) was important. As tired as this cliche is, it is nonetheless more applicable than even I can stomach, the invasion was Hitlerian in design and execution. How is "shock and awe" any different than "blitzkrieg," other than in the "acceptable loss" rationalizations of modern weaponry? "Hey, we had smart bombs!" "How smart were they?" "Far smarter than previous bombs. We only killed twenty percent of the innocent population." Oh, well, gee. That makes a completely unjustifiable invasion so much more palatable (and "spinnable") than what any other militaristic regime has ever done before, right? But I guess this clarity makes me a "liberal." Which means, of course, that the spin makes the Bush cabal "cons."