...though I know there are some who don't care, still it's a free Internet.

I think that the War on Iraq was fought for many reasons (not necessarily in this order of importance): to oust Saddam, to liberate the Iraqi people, to bring a model of democracy to the region, to reinforce/express US power in the Middle East, to give the mighty military machine something to do, to increase control over Iraqi oil, to get revenge for Papa, to show that GW has gonads, to lash out against someone in revenge for 9/11, to show the populace afraid of terrorism that "we're doing something about it", to further justify the "war on terror", to open opportunities to certain US companies in the rebuilding process, to open up a potential military base location allowing for the evacuation of Saudi Arabia, to reduce the threat of "WMD" use against the US by states or other organizations, to discredit the UN and weaken it's effectiveness, to humble/disaffect allies (we're the boss of this sandbox!), and to enhance the perception of the US as THE superpower of the world (to both the rest of the world and to US citizens). I'm sure I've missed a few reasons. The effectiveness of most of these is either questionable or to be determined, other than the ouster of Sadddam, the rebuilding contracts part, and the military exercise aspect.

I further think that none of these reasons were sufficient to declare war. This is debatable, obviously and painfully.

The most-promoted reasons for going to war (pre-war) were undeniably to rid Iraq/Saddam of "WMD", and to eliminate Iraq as a base/resource for terrorists, specifically al Qaeda.

I don't think that either of these two reasons were really justification for war at the time, but I also think that they were clearly not valid. If intelligence was good enough to justify the loss of lives, disruption to Iraq and international relations, and other co$ts$, it should have been good enough to nab a whole mess of evidence almost right away, given that the actual fighting turned out to be a fast romp and almost all of the country was in US control very quickly. Sure it's a big country, but it was big when the evidence presented was being gathered, and that was without a quarter million Americans on the ground.

Debatable points aside, I think that the issues of "who knew what, when, and how much" etc is critical enough and plausible enough to
warrant a serious, in-depth investigation by a body with sufficient power to get to the bottom of things. IF Bush et al did concoct/manipulate/twist/spin things significantly, they took their country to war unjustly. That sounds criminal, if not treasonous, to me.

Why is there relatively little outcry about it all? Maybe there's a vast right wing conspiracy, or maybe there's a small but powerful one, but I think the reason has more to do with the American psyche.

Americans have been told, over and over, for a long time, that America is the best place in the world, that it is the most powerful AND most righteous country ever, that it is magnificent. This is not without justification - America is great.

However, if one becomes complacent with this view, one tends to not look beyond one's borders, to not try to appreciate the views of others, to not understand the positive features and characteristics of other countries and cultures. In fact, I think that this "America #1" view can contribute to a wilful blindness.

If the general population were to say "hey, what the hell is REALLY going on with Iraq??", if media people were to ask that, even if Democrats were ask the hard questions out loud and repeatedly, it would shake "the view". It would call into question the perception that America, both in whole and in it's major parts, is infallible or at least far better than enything else going.

"My God, if the President lied to us about that, it means... we're not perfect!"

I know a lot of people beleived that Clinton lied about his diddling, but that wasn't a matter of international importance. I think most people regarded it as a bit of private dirty laundry. At the time, many from outside the US laughed at how seriously the dalliances were being taken... but I digress.

Impeachment - a serious move, but consider this:

SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers
of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment
for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

From the constitution

I would hope that it would be considered for possible dishonesty leading to war, at least as much as it has been considered for screwing around with an intern or bugging rival party offices.

I'm not saying Bush deserves to be impeached (though I personally think he does), but that his actions (and the actions of those around him) deserve to be examined openly and thoroughly.

I'm glad some people are asking questions. Keep it up, and don't let anyone say you're being unpatriotic by doing so.

Maybe a UN commission could be called for the job? (standing by with a defibrillator and a bunch of barf bags)

Good day!