[Burkeman1]

When Kennedy blockaded Cuba and started the Cuban Missle crisis- he presented evidence for his case to the world- personally and on live TV and risked his entire persoanl prestiege on the matter. Bush has not but instead has proxies in the press write gossip about a supposed "meeting" that took place or has rumors floated about terrorist training camps. I will gladly bless an invasion of Iraq if Bush shows us any substantial evidence that Iraq was behind 9/11 even in a remote capacity.

I systematically pointed out why each reason being floated is false and how our "allies" are more responsible than even Iraq. When a nation goes to war it is the ones calling for war who have the resposibility to say why our sons and fathers should die. This administration has not.

[Destro]

Damn straight. Your points brilliantly demolish the jingoisim of this article.

[Monti Cello]

You miss the point of my post and you are generally missing the forest for the trees.

You cite ad nauseum other regimes which share Saddam's atrocities. Saddam is simply the worst and most dangerous culprit among many. We are taking him down as a measure of practicality, realpolitik, and risk assessment, not as an effort to achieve some ideal perfectly uniform foreign policy. Saddam is unique in terms of his motivations, power, and resources

Furthermore, you note,
if such weapons were to be used against us either directly from him or though terrorist proxies his life would be over, his country invaded and taken over

Are you unaware that many experts have tied the anthrax mailings to Saddam? By your reasoning, if our intelligence experts have determined thus, our attack should be virtually automatic and required!

Your President has stated that further evidence will be put forward, and he has meetings with major allies in the same regard in the coming weeks. He obviously feels he has an argument to make. In the meantime it seems your instincts are to side with Saddam over your own President.