[yonif]

A 'gathering danger' to the U.S. because of WMD? Not so far as we can yet prove.

I agree, it was a danger, but just as Syria was a danger, probably. However, he was still a terrorist, and the US declared war on all terrorists, no matter if they were having coffee in their house, or planning a terror attack. So it still applies, in my opinion.

But there was that airliner body that was at a paramilitary training camp. So we might yet make a strong case for a 9/11 connection to Saddam.

There might be a connection, true. However, in my opinion the US should not base its war solely on those responsible for 9/11, and I don't think it has.

I don't think Saddam's own airline ever had a problem with terrorism so he won't be able to say plausibly that that prop at a camp where known terrorists had trained was exactly innocent. He will have to explain that. We should focus more on it, I think.

I agree. I am not saying he didn't have anything to do with 9/11. I just think the war on these terrorists is not discrimnated against those responsible for 9/11, but also those who might be responsible for the next one.

I think that we'll have to justify the invasion by showing Saddam to be guilty of aiding and abetting and training some of the 9/11 terrorists or providing such training to Muslim extremists. I think we can make a good enough case for it.

I say that Bush should have made that case before the war. But now it will be a little tricky. However, the case, as you say, should be about how Iraq is a target on the war on terrorism and the fact the type of leadership and Iraq, which was similar in some ways to the Taliban in Afghanistan, led to such a group Al Queda taking refuge there sucessfully. The US must say that the kind of conditions in Iraq made it probable that such a dangerous group could plan attacks against America - not to say there weren't such groups with bases in Iraq (as the US found bases for terror, along with large quantities of suicide vests).

The WMD thing is, internationlly speaking, a little weak no matter how we slice it. We need to stop standing upon such shaky ground if we can't produce some WMD.

I agree. This WMD should have always been a second concern, not the main one.

[George W. Bush]

I say that Bush should have made that case before the war. But now it will be a little tricky.

You made some excellent points. But this is the main one. It's hard to provide a really rational and consistent explanation for all that has occurred under the justification of American security concerns unless we find WMD and/or prove some Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda (and not just Palestinian terrorists).

I think we can do it. I just wished we had better evidence. Perhaps it will surface in due time.

In the end, it will be said that we claimed more than we could prove, I think. And no one can tell exactly what the longterm effects of that will be in foreign policy. I personally think we'll get away with it. I'm not certain that Blair, Berlusconi and other leaders will. It is as much for their sakes as our own that I hope we produce compelling evidence against Saddam on 9/11 terrorist training or a plausible quantity of WMD.