I'm too wordy. My thoughts don't fit on bumper-stickers.  My favorite T-Shirt is my wife's, written in Braille saying, "If you can read this, it's sexual harassment." 

That is why when someone writes a succinct, easily remembered, spin-free take on why George Bush is no longer worthy of the great trust placed in the hands of the office he did not earn, I have to take my hat off to Nick at Morons.org:

1. Bush told the UN if it did not enforce its resolutions against Iraq, the US would do it on its own.
2. Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq a month later.
3. UN Weapons Inspectors returned to Iraq on November 18.
4. Inspectors were told to leave Iraq. They had not finished their inspections.
5. Bush started the war on Iraq on March 20, 2003.

Those are the facts. They are a matter of historic record.

Rush to war?  After twelve years?  That's how the right mocks this simple concept.  The even simpler retort is that after 12 long years of dealing with a belligerent Iraq, what difference would another couple of months made?  What changed, other than Bush's child-like patience ran out and his advisers recognized that they had reached a plateau of support and would never get any more?

Revisionist justification for war number 29 seems to be that Saddam was bribing his way out of the sanction regime and once that happened it would only be a matter of time before he got as close to making nukes as . . . Brazil?  Moreover, the sanctions were still in place at the time of the invasion,  Indeed we had to ask the UN to lift those sanctions during out occupation, which required a vote which, if brought up while Saddam was in power we would have vetoed.

Someday, after a few years, IF he was left alone without no-fly zones and nobody paying any attention to him, Hussein might have reconstituted his chem/bio capabilities and started up some nuclear project not nearly as sophisticated at N. Korea's and several years behind Iran's.  Time enough to present a united front of world powers, unanimous in their determination that the status quo was no longer acceptable.  Time enough to take advantage of America's newfound solidarity with the free nations of the world in the wake of 9/11, instead of pissing it away like last night's beer.

Was your son or daughter's life worth waiting another couple of months?  Of course it was.  It was to the families who have lost children, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers to this recklessness.  Reaching the goals identified as being within your national interest, without resorting to war is called statesmanship.  Senator Kerry said this was a "gut check" question.  If you're reading this I'll assume you are a thoughtful person with the intellectual capacity for introspection. 

You know in your gut that the Iraq war was not the "last" resort.  You know that George Bush has acted recklessly, refuses to acknowledge that he too was caught up in the fever of the post-9/11 emotions, and without the restriction of having to answer for his actions to an electorate, this sitting duck will cook all of our geese.