If the priority was in fact the liberation of the Iraqi people why was that argument not presented to the U.N. or by the Bush administration until AFTER the start of the war?

That idea was spun into the equation only after the start of the war to shift the focus since the initail argument of WMD and terrorist ties held no weight.

When did the U.S. policy shift towards invading countries and forcefully removing men that are considered brutal dictators? If that is in fact our policy, then why have we avoided Africa or deposing Castro? Do we not consider Castro a brutal dictator?

The interesting thing about this, is that really isn't a Republican Vs Democrat thing. Politicians don't do what they think is right and just. They do what public opinion polls tell them they should do.

Weather or not Clinton felt deposing Sadaam or going to war with Iraq was justified and weather or not he wanted to go in there with guns blazing, there wasn't the level of public support to justify action.

If he HAD invaded Iraq without public support, rest assured it would have been the Republicans putting him on the hot seat for it. It makes it a little easier to question Bush in this case because of Iraqi oil, his administration's ties to oil and defence related business and Sr's proir dealings with Sadaam.

Regardless of who was in the White House, 9/11 created a charged atmosphere where the shift in public opinion about millitary agression has changed. All the administration needed was to present a feasable argument laced in half truths and speculation based on investigative guesswork and the majority hopped on board while the vocal minority were labeled as being anti-American.

Democracy in a nutshell: Mob rule!

We'll analyze the facts later.