I think that the War on Iraq was fought for many reasons (not necessarily in this order of importance):
to oust Saddam, Agree
to liberate the Iraqi people, Agree
to bring a model of democracy to the region, Agree
to reinforce/express US power in the Middle East, Agree
to give the mighty military machine something to do, Disagree, training is cheaper and it satisfies the mighty military
to increase control over Iraqi oil, Disagree
to get revenge for Papa, Disagree
to show that GW has gonads, ridiculous
to lash out against someone in revenge for 9/11, Maybe but I think Afghanistan filled that need
to show the populace afraid of terrorism that "we're doing something about it", Maybe but I doubt it
to further justify the "war on terror", No further justification needed
to open opportunities to certain US companies in the rebuilding process, Incidental
to open up a potential military base location allowing for the evacuation of Saudi Arabia, a good fringe benefit
to reduce the threat of "WMD" use against the US by states or other organizations, Agree
to discredit the UN and weaken it's effectiveness, Disagree, effect not cause
to humble/disaffect allies (we're the boss of this sandbox!), Disagree, effect not cause and btw our allies went with us
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). Maybe

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

If you can't find justification in the reasons stated (assuming they are valid) you are simply a pacifist and the only question that remains is whether you would fire back if fired on.

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.

Investigate away, if Bush did those things we'll throw the rascal out

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.

We are a Republic and we tend to trust our elected officials until they are proven unworthy of that trust. There is always 10-20% that have profound philosophical differences which results in permanent and total distrust.

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.

This is true. We are good and we are 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 we are blind, we are blinded by the light.

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.

The questions are being asked with the proper intensity. Zealots don't mind looking the fool, politicians and journalists do.

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

This is BS. Nixon lied, Clinton Lied, hell, half of our presidents have lied about one thing or another and we are still as close to perfect as it gets on this planet.

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.

Yeah, Yeah, one more time, the diddling was unimportant but lying under oath was wrong.

Impeachment - a serious move, but consider this:

We know all about impeachment. Just remember, Clinton had admitted lying under oath before he was impeached. How about a bit more than disgruntled partisans and pacifists before we assemble the firing squad.

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

They're a bunch of traitorous dogs. If I'm King, they are toast. :)

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

Gag me with a spoon