What's clear to me form reading this (and what pisses me off) is that they had decided on a regime change and used the WMD card as a pretext. If WMD's are your reason for invading another country, then I would think North Korea might be a litlle higher on the agenda.

If the Shrub had come right out and said "We think Sadam is a dangerous and bad man. We'd like to get rid of him. And we might get some cheaper gas to boot" I'd have said "Go for it". And if he had rallied the country around him then he is free and clear.
To justify an action with a reason that is not the case, is deceptive. And I believe that when someone gives a reason for a war that is not the real reason, I'm free to yell liar.

According to you guys, all poker games should be played with all cards face-up.

Unfortunately our opponents are playing face-down.

Our opponents would have an advantage if they knew the real reasons we attacked them? The American people could certainly use that information to judge the actions of their elected officials, but what could our opponents do with it?

Our opponents would have an advantage, and the ones we attacked would as well.

Read Haroun and the sea of stories by Salman Rushdie, it's technically a kids book but it explains why playing open handed will win in the most lucid way. Should be required reading in school.

The fatwa was the best thing that ever happened to Salman Rushdie's career. Without it he's just a second-rate expatriate Middle Eastern Author. With it, overnight celebrity.

You haven't read Salman Rushdie have you? For a start he's Indian, not 'middle eastern'. The fatwah bought a lot of attention to Salman but it's the incredible nature of his work that made him one of the great living authors. Midnight's Children was the book that brought him critical acclaim, long before the fatwah-issuing Satanic Verses.

What advantage would they have by knowing the real reason for the attack instead of the fake one?