Does that mean that every nation the US doesn't like will be attacked if they don't get nukes, and are home free if they do? Or any nation. At will.

Obviously not. Though that's what Sullivan certainly implies.

So what are the criteria? The only thing which stands out about Iraq is that it has oil ready to be pumped and doesn't deal with the US, except through Halliburton subsidiaries, possibly. While Cheney was CEO, anyway. So much for that moral high road - the VP was doing business with Saddam even while Saddam was blacklisted in this country.

And The First Daddys' pride. Those are it.

The idea of them using WMD? Well, the US gave them the WMD to them. Did we give them WMD to use, or not? Is the person who hands the guy next to him the gun used to shoot a child as guilty as the shooter?

The US drew up battle plans for using them, the US supported the Iraqi war effort while they were using them and after. Sort of shoots the moral superiority in the butt.

And the lies about Iraq supporting 9-11. Why would they (Rumsfeld, Bush) tell those if the truth were adequate? Why wouldn't they listen to their own CIA unless the truth won't justify their actions?

Arf