re: So, if Reagan was an accomplice of Hussein, should Bush have done the same?

Thanks for acknowledging that Reagan was an accomplice of Hussein. Next you'll be admitting his role in Iran-Contra and that he didn't bring down the Soviet Union.

Now, in your question, you present a false choice; i.e. do what Reagan and the U.S. had done for years in supporting Hussein or invade Iraq, as though there was no alternative, which is preposterous.

As to what Bush did: He took this country into a war based upon demonstably false premises.

Here are those premises, laid out by the liar-in-chief himself:

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat

EXCERPTS:

“The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today - and we do…a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions…surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons…Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas…Saddam Hussein’s links to international terrorist groups…Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade…Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases…September the 11th…Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction…The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” — his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons…Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists…America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud…Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon…”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

re: I am not acknowledging that Reagan was an accomplice of Hussein.

It matters not whether you acknowledge it. It's a fact. Read the articles I previously posted. Watch the video of Rummy shaking Saddam's hand. It's all irrefutable evidence.

re: Reagan had to have the same intentions that Hussein and he did not

Of course he did, which is why he supported him. You don't support someone unless you have the same intentions, now do you? Reagan characterized Saddam as a "stabilizing force" in the Middle East. He helped him kill thousands of Iranians. The fact that a few Kurds got gassed along the way didn't cause any shift in Reagan's support of Saddam, as the articles cited clearly show.

re: everybody, including the United Nations and most democrats in Congress believed that Hussein had WMDs

An oft-repeated lie.

In fact, democrats in Congress relied on the Bush administration for the intelligence -- intelligence which, as we now know, was supplied by Cheney's "Office of Special Plans".

SEE:

The Stovepipe

How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq’s weapons.

by Seymour M. Hersh

...the intelligence reports about Iraq provided by the United Nations inspection teams and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitored Iraq’s nuclear-weapons programs, were far more accurate than the C.I.A. estimates. “Some of the old-timers in the community are appalled by how bad the analysis was,” the official said. “If you look at them side by side, C.I.A. versus United Nations, the U.N. agencies come out ahead across the board.”...Part of the answer lies in decisions made early in the Bush Administration, before the events of September 11, 2001. In interviews with present and former intelligence officials, I was told that some senior Administration people, soon after coming to power, had bypassed the government’s customary procedures for vetting intelligence...Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, whose book “The Threatening Storm” generally supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, told me that what the Bush people did was “dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership...“They always had information to back up their public claims, but it was often very bad information,” Pollack continued. “They were forcing the intelligence community to defend its good information and good analysis so aggressively that the intelligence analysts didn’t have the time or the energy to go after the bad information.”

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/27/031027fa_fact

Have a nice day.

re: Barack Obama proposes to shut the detention camp but where can the detainees go

Obviously, if detainees who were captured but never charged with anything and in fact can't be charged with anything due to a lack of evidence under due process, and they cannot now go back to where they came from for whatever reason, the U.S. has an obligation to assimilate them.

You can thank Bush.