Biases matter. My first impression reading your link was that this is a crazed rant, not a rational, methodical weighing of the available evidence. These sort of organizations exist to continually whip up a froth of partisan furor, and so are always suspect. This is not a good source if your goal is to do anything other than preach to your own choir. This is the type of "proof" that keeps ideological opponents talking past each other.

Honestly, I lean liberal, but I make a concerted effort not to get frothed up by liberal media. I think that on balance those sources cause more harm than good. And really, life just doesn't fit into nice little outrage inducing narratives, but you would never know it if you only consumed these sort of news sources.

[edit 3:27 CDT to add the commentary, i.e. everything other than the link]

[Edited for clarity]

The Downing Street Memo was widely reported in major newspapers and contained among other things the passage "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Blix: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/18/opinion/iraq-war-hans-blix/

This is a nice summary of regime change http://publicintellectualsproject.mcmaster.ca/democracy/real...

It literally says "How start" meaning "how [to] start [Iraq war]".

> Note that the first reason depends on Saddam attacking the Kurds - not very actionable for the US!

Sure it is. Arming and supporting the Kurds to conduct instigating attacks or incursions is just one way.

>Arming and supporting the Kurds to conduct instigating attacks or incursions is just one way.

Then it would have said something like: "Kurds provoke", not "Saddam attacks". In any event, we wouldn't have stepped in just based on a Kurd attack. The response would still be dependent upon Saddam.