I am not overlooking any of those "trifles", Teribus, regardless of your bland assumptions that I am. I know it would be very handy for your rhetorical purposes if I did overlook such things, but I am not. It would be handy for your rhetorical purposes if everyone who disagreed with you about Iraq was a drooling, obviously insane, and gibbering lunatic, but they are not. No, life is just not that convenient for you, sir, and it's never going to be. Your adversaries will never be the uniformed prats and morons you wish they all were. ;-)

I am simply saying that Iraq was far better off never being invaded by Bush's armies in 2003, regardless of the rotten things Saddam did to his people over the years (while the USA supported him through most of that time). And I hold to that. George Bush has done more harm to Iraq and Iraqis in general than Saddam was ever able to. Far more. He has killed more of them than Saddam did and ruined more lives there than Saddam and done more harm to the country than Saddam, AND he's trespassing, because he is NOT an Iraqi, and his soldiers have no business messing around in that country at all.

They are committing unprovoked aggression against a country that was no threat to the USA in 2003...or indeed, at any time.