Opposing thuggocrats has been a leftie hobby for a long, long time.

Bush just realized it's a convenient cover for the lack of a legitimate causus belli. I predict the next ruler of Iraq will be a bloody thuggocrat who's willing to play along with Bush.

In particular, some of us suggested that Bush I should not have bailed Saddam's ass out when the Iraqui's had almost overthrown him. And should have at least mentioned that gassing the Kurds is considered in poor taste - yeah, he knew about it and was in communication with the thug at the time and DIDN'T SAY A FUCKING WORD.

There's a lot that could have been done short of war. Like not installing a known thug in the first place. But Republicans (except in odd times like this) LOVE murderous bastards like Saddam until they do something that interferes with business - in this case, nationalizing the oil production*. So do "electable" Democrats, unfortunately. But us foaming mouth leftists have a long history of getting upset about murderous thuggocrats and being told that sovereignty is more important than civil rights. Nice term "human/civil" - kind of implies we are being picky about electoral improprieties and restrictions on porn, when the rights we are more concerned with are things like the right not to be tortured to death for no particular reason.

* No, the war isn't about oil, exactly. But if Saddam had continued to play nice with the oil companies, Bush would still love him. Mass graves and gas and all.