Ah, yes, this brings up another similarity between the Bush administration and the Third Reich. That similarity is the conducting of a "first strike" military attack on another country wherein the publiclly announced reasons turn out to be false. When Hitler invaded the Sudetenland, the announced reason was that the Germans living there were being treated badly. History proved that false. When Bush invaded Iraq, the announced reason was that Iraq had certain strategic weapons. Recent history has proven that this claim too was false and that the information relied upon, even if it had been true, made far too weak a case to justify a "first strike" invasion. What happened here, even when construed in a light most favorable to the Bush administration, violates every principle of initiation of war I was taught in several sessions of my training when I was a military officer. I was taught that the US does not initiate pre-emptive war unless (1) the other country has the weapons to initiate an attack on a country that would involve the US in the war (2) the oher country has a delivery system for such weapons, and (3) the other country has unmistakably developed intentions for a specific attack. Here, in the best light, the Bush administration THOUGHT Iraq had the weapons (but they were wrong). But it was never claimed that Iraq had a delivery system (bombers, missles), and it did not. And it was never claimed that Iraq had developed an intent to attack any SPECIFIC country. (Can you name it? Thought not!)

Thanks,
Richard