474 days until...nothing really. Nothing substantial will essentially change. Goodbye Bushites, hello Clintonites. Two sides of the same coin.

The truth is, no matter how much you want to spin it, this war was an act of aggression.

You remind me of Bushites attempting to justify the legality (and somehow the humanity) of torture by running us through a loophole in semantics of them being deemed "enemy combatants" (not civilians and not soldiers).

Even if the Iraq war were technically legal by word (which, incidentally it isn't [as, among other things, it breaches the UN Charter accounting for a war of aggression, and there of course was no formal declaration of war by Congress, unless, of course, you really don't think this is a war at all? Plus according to the congressional 'authorization' for force, in Section 3 paragraph b that Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was still in violation of UN resolutions by possessing weapons of mass destruction, and more importantly that Iraq was connected to international terrorist organizations including those responsible for 9/11; and that any peaceful measure would not be adequate in enforcing UN resolutions [which, of course we now know that war was used as a first resort, not a last]]), it still would violate the true meaning and intent behind international law, because it is still a war of aggression.

Therefore, even if you were right, which you're not; it would still be considered 'illegal war' because of it's violation of the spirit and intent of international law. Germany gave us a BS account for the legality of the attack on Poland because of Poland's (and the communists') alleged terrorist attacks on Germany (which we now know as a fabrication by Himmler), as well as Poland and the east's 'threat' on Germany and the western nations. But we knew it was a bunch of smoke and mirrors. It was still a war of aggression, and therefore illegal in the international community's books.