[BlueStateDepression]

I don't. In fact, my opposition to this war dates back to late 2002 -- when I knew that the "official" rationale for the war was bullsh!t.

Could you lay out for this thread what the "official" rationale was?

My guess is that you have the medias version confused with the administrations version. For reference try reading the Use Of Force document voted on by the congress. You might just learn a thing or two.

[Alberta's Child]

The "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq," as voted by Congress on October 2, 2002, is even worse than those silly "weapons of mass destruction" speeches that the President was making back in late 2002 and early 2003.

I never thought I'd see the day when so-called "conservatives" in this country would believe that violations of U.N. resolutions and enforcement of another country's "international obligations" would constitute a legitimate rationale for putting even a single U.S. life in harm's way halfway around the world.

What is the political/philosophical principle under which a conservative American considers the use of "international law" to be an act of treason when suggested by a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court but a legitimate power of the U.S. government when authorized in an act of Congress?