> There was no danger of Afganistan attacking us either. So why did we invade them?

Puhlease. If you recall, Bush, Powell, et all told us they knew Iraq had WMDs and they knew where they were. Slam dunk remember? And Bush told us in the state of the union speech that iraq had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. But that was a dubious bit of info that was based on forged documents (identified as forged by the CIA). The admin told us that the aluminum tubes iraq had bought were specifically to be used as centrifuges. But that was contested by several different agencies (ours and internation ones) as well, and the more likely use was for conventional 81mm rockets that Iraq already had. But he was positive it was for WMD use. And then there's the pre-war, no fly zone ramped up bombing (to both provoke and to clear the way for our troops). Number of bombs dropped in March+April 2002 = almost zero. Number of bombs dropped in September 2002 = 54 tons (with increasing monthly levels). Congress authorizes military action against iraq on Oct 11, 2002. War starts March 2003. And you have "Curveball", a brother of a top lieutenant of Chalabi (supplier of much discounted intel, his Iraqi National Congress the recipient of $33 million by U.S., friend of Wolfowitz), who was a source of the mobile chemical labs claims that the administration latched on to, all the while the CIA was stating it had "doubts about Curveball's reliability". Then u have the head of British Intel reporting to Blair that the americans (who he had just met with) "had decided on war and that the intel was being fixed around the policy". All the while, we hear that war is a last resort, that we're working thru the UN. Regime change was not a valid reason for the Brits (and a lessor worry to the admin here), and as a result we get contorted and every changing reasons as to why W is in Iraq.