If we're just going to take out anyone we consider a "threat" who can be taken out, I can't support that policy.
And by the way, nice rhetorical trick, telling anyone who disagrees with your failed policy that they're just an armchair quarterback. I don't have to run for office, thank goodness. I elect other people to office so that I am free to pursue other things.
Speaking of which, I used to feel like the House and Senate had my back, so I was safe to do as I pleased. But now Dubya has pissed away the Congress thanks to his lack of foresight in Iraq and his unwillingness, right through the election, to adapt to the situation there.
It's not "my" failed policy...I don't believe it HAS failed since we aren't done yet, nor do I think we as a nation have decided to go after just anyone we consider a "threat". After 911 Bush said we would go after those who harbor and/or give aid to terrorists, not just Al Qaeda but Islamist terrorists. Frankly, I don't think it matters whether they're Hamas, Hezbollah, or Al Qaeda...they're all one big jihadist family that share an ideology, training (and probably funds & members as well). You might want to read up on Salman Pak as it was a terrorist training facility not too far from Bagdad (that would be in Iraq).
Now, you could certainly make the argument that Iraq isn't the only country to harbor and support terrorists but you have to start somewhere. The fact is THEY violated the terms of the cease-fire, by merely kicking the inspectors out. THEY violated the terms again by not allowing said inspectors complete access when they were "allowed" back in Iraq. If we don't have the balls to enforce our agreements we have no business making them.
By virtue of their violating a cease-fire agreement, harboring and giving aid to terrorists they made themselves a target. While I'm not sure how you know Saddam's knowledge of Zarqawi being in Iraq was tenuous (it wasn't exactly an open society) he WAS there receiving medical treatment after fleeing the battlefield in Afghanistan. For all we know the 2 might have gotten together for tea and cookies every other Tuesday or Saturday night double date-rape.
Nevertheless, Saddam's tentacles were pretty much everywhere and it certainly wouldn't have been impossible for him to take Zarqawi into custody and turn him over to the US or the international community. And then there's Abul Abbas (but I'm guessing in your mind he doesn't count since his big claim to fame was the Achille Lauro hijacking and you seem to have some kind of statute of limitations on terrorism). I don't know what your definition of "harboring" is, but those 2 examples certainly fit mine.
Now as far as aiding, I'd say large checks to suicide bombers families constitute "aiding" (again, your definition may vary). While we may not be able to trace those checks in particular to the pockets of terrorists landing on our shores (and sitting in our airplanes) it definitely supports a mindset and is incentive to continue fostering those rather warped beliefs. To me these are not minor things.
I won't get into the WMD issue because I think 1) violating a cease-fire agreement, 2) harboring terrorists, and 3) giving monetary aid to terrorists (or those that breed them) is enough justification for taking Saddam out, but I really urge you to read through some of the translations jveritas has done. They are documents from Saddam's own government, some quite recent, that discuss WMDs, weapons programs, etc. There are also plenty members of his administration who have discussed these things as well.
Cindie