"No. Only nations run by psychotic monsters who are likely to use nukes unprovoked, or provoked by things only seen by their ravaged brains. And even then, it's a difficult decision."

(Many people in this world think GWB is a psychotic monster with a ravaged brain. We might want to be careful with the demonization.)

Either Iraq has WMD, or it doesn't. If it does, it hasn't used them against us, probably for the same reason the USSR, China, Pakistan, India, North Korea, Iran, and all manner of countries with even rudimentary biological and chemical weapons. By the way, the US has never signed the convention against those, much like a "rogue" nation.

(I enjoyed Colin Powell on "Meet the Press". He said that North Korea didn't have the "technical proficiency" to use WMD. Lessee - Plutonium nukes, ballistic missiles capable of reaching Alaska, access to shipping including air freight, and diplomatic pouches. "Don't have the technical proficiency". Poor Powell. They made him say it with a straight face, too.)

If Iraq doesn't have them, fine. Can't use them. And if it does, like many, many other nations it hasn't used them. And why would the Prez, Vice Prez and SecDoD lie about it according to their own CIA and FBI if the truth would work?

Can't find a reason to attack there.

Back to basics. Look at recent history. Was it "to restore democracy to Kuwait", as Daddy Bush said, a palpable lie, or was it for oil?

Is it because Saddam may have WMD? No, we gave 'em to him.

Is it oil? That's all that makes any sense, for those of us who want this to make sense.

The nut didn't fall too far from the tree.

Arf