So there we have it. We now have two introspective analyses from bothe the U.S. and U.K. governmetns that affirm what we knew already...that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction and was not working with Al Qaeda. Both reports conclude that the case for war was based upon falacious "intelligence."

So all that's left for the neocons is to claim that regime change was good. But the problem with this is that regime change alone is a violation of international law. In fact the British report concludes the following on this point:

"Officials noted that regime change of itself had no basis in international law;and that any offensive military action against Iraq could only be justi fied if Iraq were held to be in breach of its disarmament obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 or some new resolution."

"Officials also noted that for the five Permanent Members of the Security Council and the majority of the 15 members of the Council to take the view that Iraq was in breach of its obligations under Resolution 687,they would need to be convinced that Iraq was in breach of its obligations;that such proof would need to be incontrovertible and of large-scale activity;but that the intelligence then available was insufficiently robust to meet that criterion."

In otherwords, the rush to war absent unequivocal proof of WMDs violated international agreements to which both the U.S. and the U.K. are parties to. This, of course, explains why both governments were hellbent on exaggerating the case for WMDs...neither could justify military action simple to topple Saddam Hussein.

On another point, the British report concludes that the U.N. sanctions and inspections were actually working:

"We note that much of what was reliably known about Iraq ’s unconventional weapons programmes in the mid-and late-1990s was obtained through the reports of the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) and of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."

"These international agencies now appear to have been more effective than was realised at the time in dismantling and inhibiting Iraq ’s prohibited weapons programmes. The value of such international organisations needs to be recognised and built on for the future, supported by the contribution of intelligence from national agencies."

In otherwords, the U.N. information was more reliable and accurate that either U.S. or U.K. intelligence and UN weapons programs were effective.

Plainly put, the case for war has now been thoroughly debunked. The American people were hoodwinked by an administration so blinded by its own arrogance it deliberately failed to recognize just how ephemeral its claims were. As a consequence, hundreds of American soldiers have been killed, thousands of Iraqi civilians have died and hundreds of billions of American dollars have been spent needlessly and in violation of international law.

This is a national disgrace.