[yonif]

Even if there is a link it doesn't matter. Saddam is a terrorist no matter if he is buddies with Osama or not. Proving a link between Saddam and Al Queda is unneeded really to justify the US overthrowing the Saddam regime.

[Susannah]

Those of us that support the war against Iraq do see it as part of the war on terrorism; however, the polls indicate Bush gets high marks on the war on terrorism but low marks on the Iraq war.

The number one issue for the election seems to be focused on what a majority of Americans believe was a war with Iraq that had no justification. The rants from the left and even from the right continue to be based on "no WMD found", Iraq couldn't have harmed us, etc. Proving a link between Saddam and 911 would wake up most of the anti-war movement and those that are whining "Bush lied to get us into an unecessary war"

[KingKangaroo]

Following that logic - can we expect to see Westminster MP Martin McGuinness taken out by a Predator? Or what about some leading members of the Israeli Government, who fought a terorist campaign against Britain?

Saddam should have been disposed of after the first Gulf War. Spurious links with Bin laden etc etc just go to show how we missed our chance back then.

[ovrtaxt]

Agreed. He was actively paying off Palestinian families who sent their own children off to murder Israeli civilians.

But of course, that line of thinking would require doing away with the double standard.

[wayoverontheright]

Even if there is a link it doesn't matter. Saddam is a terrorist no matter if he is buddies with Osama or not. Proving a link between Saddam and Al Queda is unneeded really to justify the US overthrowing the Saddam regime.

I am in total agreement.

If there is a lesson from 9-11, it is that we could be attacked WITHOUT WMD. To oppose war with Iraq, one must not only fail to grasp this lesson, but conclude that Saddam would be oblivious to it also, a potentially DEADLY conclusion.

[Doc-Joe]

Bump for lunch read...