[driftless]

You know of course that Hussein was a major supporter of terror in and outside the U.S. To deny that Hussein was a major threat to the U.S. and its allies is to say that many analysts (including Steven Hayes, Laurie Mylroie, Jayna Davis, and others) who've studied Hussein and have concluded that he was neck-deep in Islamo-fascist terrorism including Al-Qaeda and other wahhabist groups. Jayne Davis claims that Hussein was deeply involved in the Oklahoma City bombing. Mylroie puts has him complicit with the 1993 WYC bombing. And he still might have had a hand in 9/11. Vladimir Putin has evidence that Hussein planned terrorist attacks in the U.S. Now some of these people might be wrong, but ALL of them?!!? I strongly supported removing Hussein long before the war, and I'm now far more sure of that belief than I ever was.

[AlbionGirl]

Yes, but so are Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc., etc., and maybe even Saudia Arabia. We didn't go there. Why? Because Saddam was easy pickings, and we needed to establish a presence there. I understand all that, but we still weren't sold the War effort with that rationale, we were told that Iraq was a grave and gathering threat. They were no more grave and/or gathering than Iran.

As I said this effort could turn out to be a boon for all, as I hope it will be, but only time will reveal whether that's the case. But I'm still worried about the awful state of our Intelligence, and said intelligence which ostensibly led to this invasion.