Response:
DNK:
The Hitler analogy doesn't make a good comparison geo-politically because the only time that Saddam has invaded another country he's gotten spanked and spanked hard (Iran-Iraq and Gulf War I). If you want to make the argument that they are at least roughly equivalent on internal politics (evil dictators), I'll grant you that.
As for the Coalition of the Willing, I would like to hear your arguments as to how that is multi-lateral, even though it's kind of moot since hostilities have officially ended (but I still like arguing ;) ) . My take on it is: the only people that were effective combatants in Iraq Dos were the US and UK, how does that make the conflict multi-lateral? And don't say that it's multi-lateral because there was more than one coutry involved, that's a bogus argument because there were a lot MORE countries that didn't want to go to war that are also our allies.
Warch:
Who would dare question? Dean from Vermont (I think), one of the Democratic Primary candidates. The rhetoric he's throwing down is heartening if you don't quite trust the current administration.

Question time:
What will be the ultimate cost for the Iraqi people? Ostensibly, we have brought them freedom. But at this point, freedom == barely contained anarchy. Is this a result of a)stronger than expected resistance to the American military action? Or b)extraordinarily poor planning on the part of the Pentagon/State Department/Bush Administration? Or, for the conspiracy minded, c)extremely subtle and duplicitous planning on the part of Pentagon/State Department/Bush Adminstration?

Finally, I may have missed this elsewhere, but, does anyone know when planning to go to war in Iraq started? I have my own theory based purely on anecdotal information, but I'd like to have some more facts.

You think Saddam was "spanked hard" after Gulf War I? His people were spanked hard; he was forced to be a bit more sneaky; but he was definitely not "spanked hard", or at least as hard as he should have been.

You don't have to be a combatant to help with the war effort. Just at Camp Doha (and this is just off the top of my head) there were units from Kuwait, Jordan, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Australia, and yes, even Germany. They provided much-needed support operations such as chemical recon.

US and UK are the most technologically advanced and well-trained fighting forces, so it only makes sense that they did most of the fighting.

     First off, I'd like to say that the Hitler analogy is crap not because of Saddams lack of successful invasions, but because we didn't "stick our nose where it didn't belong" in WWII. In fact, we didn't get involved till we were attacked by Japan. Having Japan declare war on us pretty well precludes us from not belonging in that conflict. Up till then we did stay out of it, officially speaking anyway.
     As far as when the planning started, we'll never know. I will say that I remember my friends and I joking about when we go to war with Iraq pre-election day, and even not joking when we discussed war with Iraq the day after 9-11.
     As UT said earlier Bush is not stupid. I've pointed out before that he seems to have gotten everything he wanted. That's not luck. And UT's prediction of the miraculous explanations coming to light just in time for elections sounds pretty accurate to me. Spooky too.

I'm not sure it matters if anyone questions. It was obvious that Bush was stretching reallity during the State of the Union with his Iraq/bin Laden connection, while the nuke U lar funny business came out soon after(I forget the time frame.). His supporters were and are willing to suspend disbelief. The same folks who were sceptical then are sceptical now. Dean does, however, have a leg up on the Dems who lacked the cajones to express doubt back then. He has a ready made block of voters and quite a fund raising machine. His problem is convincing Democratic voters that its okay to pretend they were mislead. I guess, though, if most Dem politicians are a reflection of the voters...

PNAC's white paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses:
Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" outlining the importance of global empire building, including regime change in Iraq, was released in September of 2000. I'd assume political types have been planning it since Bush Daddy lost to Clinton.

Keeping track of the Niger statement
 

This morning Instapundit has a link to a story in the Telegraph that completely blew my mind.

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/ne...eudora=autourl

Follow? The Brits did not rely on the infamous forged Niger document when they said Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Niger. And the most likely reason only the Brits, and not the US, have information on the Niger - Iraqi uranium link is that the key intel is French.

I'm tellin' ya, there is more to this thing.