It's ironic that Bush & Co., who trashed international conventions and defied the UN to invade Iraq, are now justifying their invasion by saying that Saddam needed to be removed from power because he refused to comply with international law. In this case, it seems, they are talking about "international law" as set out by UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq, the very organisation they themselves ridicule and berate (until they need help, that is).

"We had questions that needed to be answered," says Colin Powell. "What we demanded of Iraq was that they account for all of this and they prove the negative of our hypothesis.. All they did was make statements without proving it to our satisfaction."

So. Just as the deadly WMDs have now become "program-related activities," the clear-cut, absolute and positive proof of WMDs that Powell presented to the UN has now become a "hypothesis". Funny, he wasn't calling it a "hypothesis" back then.

As anti-war protestors will remember, Saddam actually did comply with UN resolutions, albeit very begrudgingly and throwing up obstacles at every opportunity. He did allow UN weapons inspectors into his country - even into his Presidential Palaces - and they came up with nothing. The UN inspectors said they needed more time to confirm there were no WMDs anywhere in Iraq. The US and UK governments said that wasn't good enough because Saddam was secretly developing WMDs that could be used on an international scale "within 45 minutes". That was the justification for invasion.

Although WMD lead inspector David Kay has resigned claiming there are no WMDs in Iraq, White House spokesman Scott McClellan still believes the WMDs will be found:

"We believe it's important for the Iraq Survey Group to complete its work so we have as complete a picture as possible."

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft is still arguing that Saddam's weapons arsenal was sufficient cause to overthrow his regime:

"Weapons of mass destruction, including evil chemistry and evil biology, are all matters of great concern, not only to the United States, but also to the world community."

(Well, if we can wage war on an abstract concept, I guess we can label chemistry and biology "evil".)

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney is still claiming that Hussein harboured terrorists:

"Today the former dictator (of Iraq) sits in captivity; he can no longer harbour and support terrorists, and his long efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction are at an end."

Even British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insists the war was and will be justified:

"I believe the decision we made on March 18 to take military action was justified then in terms of enforcing international law and is still more justified now... A great deal more evidence will emerge."

It's very strange. Why can't these guys just admit that they might have been wrong? Do they know something we still don't know? Or do they think they can keep bluffing until the US elections in November? Will a mysterious cache of WMDs be discovered in late October, for example, only to be dismissed as a hoax in December?

(Don't laugh - Australian PM John Howard pulled off this trick with a boatload of refugees to win the last election).

Meanwhile, US attempts to maintain basic credibility - let alone the moral high ground - on the international stage are becoming farcical. In Russia, Colin Powell asserts that Russia has yet to achieve an "essential balance" between executive power and other parts of government. "Political power is not yet fully tethered to law," he says.

It's a pity. When he first joined the Bush Administration, Powell did seem like a nice guy.