Iraq has a great case for attacking the US, if you look at it.

If Iraq threatened to assassinate Bush, would the US regard that as reason to go to war?

If Iraq had WMD and moved them as well as hundreds of thousands of soldiers and other assets onto the US border, would the US have a reason go to go war?

If Iraq had invaded the US before, and said they were going to do it again, would the US be justified in defending itself?

There is no indication Iraq had anything to do with WTC, and in fact probably knew much less about that attack before it happened than the Bush Administration did.

Who has a legitimate reason to attack here, the nation being threatened with aggression or the nation with WMD threatening a smaller nation and it's leader?

If a small nation is threatened with aggression by a larger nation, is it reasonable that small nation might try to get "equalizers", the new age equivalent of the good ol' six-shooter? Sort of like Israel getting nukes? Or should Israel get rid of the nukes?

Would Iraq use WMD without Reagan-Bush drawing up the battle plans? Dunno.

Arf (wondering if Bush had gotten ANWR if Iraq would be that important - But Georgey, what have you done for us since the tax cut!! Besides gutting environmental regulations, that was a given. What have you done for us today?)