BB has a fine point, one that deserves an answer. There is no argument that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein killing people in it. There is some question as to what he was not in compliance with, exactly. If he had in fact discontinued all WMD programs but was simply being an intransigent ass as far as saying so, that is a different matter than if he were in fact secretly doing the things Rice, Rove, Bush and Cheney asserted he was.

Furthermore, you are waving a wide brush, Bruce, when you speak as though everyone who was opposed to Bush's war on Iraq was also silent about Saddam's crimes against the Kurds. I don't think this is justified as a general conclusion.

Finally there is the question of unilateral war and preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation. While Bush, having gotten himself appointed Commander in Chief had the power to invade Iraq, and used it, he did not have the consent of the majority of the people in the country or the full ratification of Congress; to get even their condoning of his actions he had to flood the media with exaggerations and falsehoods.

Being a man of action may be better, especially in a leader, than being a man of no-action, UNLESS the actions are ill-informed, misestimated and destructive in their net effect, as this one has so far been.

A