[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

The discovery of terrorist connections -- including the training camp south of Baghdad, gives Bush all the justification he ever needed for this war, even without WMD.

No, it doesn't.

1 - the 'legal' justification for invading Iraq was its possession of WMD's. Unless Iraq posseses WMD's, then the war was illegal.

2 - the discovery of anything other than WMD's in Iraq will not make the war legal.

3 - an Al Quaeda training camp was recently discovered in Washington State or Oregon. It's possible that other exist but have not been discovered yet. It is estimated that hundreds or thousands of terrorists operate in the United States. Should W then bomb and occupy the United States?

[ChuckHam]

1 - the 'legal' justification for invading Iraq was its possession of WMD's. Unless Iraq posseses WMD's, then the war was illegal.

Says who?

2 - the discovery of anything other than WMD's in Iraq will not make the war legal.

Says who?

[dead]

1 - the 'legal' justification for invading Iraq was its possession of WMD's.

Completely and utterly wrong.

The "legal" justification was Iraq's failure to comply with various UN resolutions regarding disarmament (among other things.) Even if we find nothing, Iraq still failed to comply with the resolutions.

One of the political justifications was the WMD.

[slowhandluke]

RE: justification is the possession of WMD

I thought the justification was Saddams
refusal to come clean, and allow full inspections.
We're just using M1A1s instead of landrovers
to carry the inspectors, who are Marines and
not Hans Blix & crew.

Emptying the torture cells is sufficient
justification for me, even if arrived at
after the fact. There's no Miranda in
effect herre. There's no such thing as 'tainted
evidence', or evidence without proper search warrant
in international law.

[Maceman]

Whaddya mean legal? Who has jurisdiction? What is the difference between what we did in Iraq and what we did in Afghanistan from a legal point of view?

Bush has said that we will not differentiate between terrorists and the governments that harbor and support them. Clearly, Saddam's regime was guilty of both actions.

And if this war is "illegal" (whatever that means), where is the court of jurisdiction in which anyone could seek a legal remedy?

The concept of this war being illegal is absurd.