It's not about WMD's nor is it about the world being better off with Hussein in a cell. Its about making a conscientious choice towards a nation under siege. So many radicals cry about this latest report saying there were no stockpiles of weapons, therefore we had no right to invade and kill 10,000 plus Iraqi civilians. Others of the same radicalism, just on the other side say that Hussein harbored terrorists, had used WMD's in the past, violated 12 years of sanctions, and intended to pursue weapons programs again after sanctions were removed. Why can't both sides see that its all about making a choice, a very simple choice. 1) We could have not invaded, just kept fighting to keep sanctions on the Iraqi regime, and in the process let another million civilians die in agony due to starvation or dehydration because Hussein was making secret oil deals with France, Russia, and apparently China. or 2) We could have let sanctions be lifted, let Hussein pursue weapons programs again this time with the help of the above mentioned countries, and Hussein would once again become a world menace and a very dangerous threat to many countries in the middle east. I can't even begin to count the number of dead that would start to occur. So, we removed hussein from power. Yes, 10,000+ civilians dying, 1,000+ of our troops, and I'm sure that some more will occur but isn't THAT price far better than the two alternatives I described above? Think about that next time one of you anti-war people cry about civilian deaths........I didn't see Clinton or Albright do anything except agree that half a million deaths was worth the price of regime change.