Did Bush manipulate Iraq data?

[Chaerophon]

the US and Saddam Hussein's Iraq were morally equivalent

Hmmmm.... Just because America can "legitimately" invade a country in order to ensure its oil production standards are met and Iraq cannot does not grant the Americans moral highground in terms of International Affairs. In terms of citizen abuse, the Iraqis have the Americans beat, but, in terms of international affairs, I'm not sure that you would ever be able to elevate the American position above that of Hussein.

Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, and in my humble opinion any gov't not so constituted is fundamentally illegitimate.  Any country in the world had the MORAL right to invade Saddam Hussein's Iraq (but not an obligation), because Saddam had no rights at all.

A dangerous precedent to be set, don't you think? Any government in the world, presumably, derives its powers from the consent of the governed. In the case of a dictator such as Saddam, that consent is considered to be implicit as it is in many other countries, since there is no democratic means in place to explicitly state that it is so (keep reading, I'm not done). Indeed, in the case of Iraq, it seems highly likely that the majority of the citizenry would prefer life under a different sort of regime, even if they don't know it (as it seems that many do not). However, to my mind, your contentions raise a glaring error. Just because a country does not have a democratic system in place that explicitly identifies the "consent" of the governed does not give a foreign country the moral right to invade. You have an overinflated notion of democracy, if you ask me. Certainly, it is the best (read safest) way to organize a republic; however, just because a nation is not a democracy, it does not mean a.) that its citizens are inherently unhappy (although this is likely to become the case at some point in time, in the absence of the checks and balances of a democracy) or b.) that its citizens cannot rise up on their own if the situation becomes more than they can bear. I acknowledge that the situation in Iraq had reached a point where it was obvious that the citizens would have a difficult time rising up, however, since the liberation of Iraq was clearly not the purpose of the American invasion, nor is Iraq the most tyrranical regime in the world, the point seems moot.

To answer the paragraph at the end of your post:

1.) If it is not a defensible sentiment in America, does it somehow become defensible when it is in the mid-east?

Was the entire middle east responsible for the terrorist attacks? Should we just start "killing the rag-heads" because they killed some of us? If you are going to base the legitimacy of your government upon democratic representation, then you must also have a great deal of respect for the freedoms of the press and speech that exist in your country. Those same freedoms do not exist in Iraq and much of the middle east. Defending one's country is one thing. Attacking out of spite those whose opinions never had a chance of being properly formed is, perhaps, less defensible to my mind than are the contentions of those in the Middle East who are uninformed through no fault of their own, but rather, speak out against the western world out of either fear or government-sponsored and enforced ignorance. War is not the best way to make people who hate you change their minds, especially wars without cause.

2.) have America's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq been morally equivalent to Al-Quada's attacks on America?  

Nope, probably not, but was the entire middle-east responsible for those attacks? Should we really be attacking nations whose input into the attacks was nil? Many would call that feeding the fire. I have very little objection to the attacks in Afghanistan although I have many objections to the manner in which the region has been handled since. What little was left of Afghanistan before the invasion has been razed to the ground and the pieces have never been picked up or even cleaned up. Iraq has been attacked with little reason in mind but the increased wealth of a select few and the assurance of an oil supply to the American public, an oil supply that was all but assured in the first place.

3.)  Should America refain from acting to defend itself merely because of a negative world opinion?

When did Iraq attack the United States? Your assertion of democracy's inherent status should work against the notion that you are expressing here. The support of Bin-Laden in Afghanistan made the attack there a matter of national defense. The same cannot be said of that in Iraq. Support that existed for the march into Afghanistan disappeared when it came to Iraq. There was a reason for that.