Quote Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios View Post
I think point (1) can be more accurately reflected as:

Bush administration (and other governments of the allies at the time) had essentially decided upon a war with Iraq and were going to get one: due process, or even a casus belli be damned. From that it should be apparent why opponents of the war consider the war so very very wrong: no need to bring in the quagmire they caused in points 2 thru 4.

EDIT: Or in one laden word that this comes so close to: treason.
I wouldn't go quite that far. If you were to assert that numerous folks in the Bush admin were looking for almost any semi-valid excuse to hammer Saddam, and that they let themselves fall prey to this in their decision-making, I'd agree. It is SO easy to see what you want to see in questionable data if you already have a set goal in mind.

You would have a lot of trouble convincing a jury that it was treasonous. All of the actors in the drama were genuinely convinced that Saddam's removal was in the best interests of the USA; and Saddam had already (at least in strict de jure terms) provided a casus bellum by not adhering to the letter of each of the cease-fire protocols of 1992. As such, it would be hard to argue treason. Negligence, etc. you could make a better case for.