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.
But fine, let Bush come forward with proof and on live TV and tell the nation and the world that Iraq is more of a threat to us than Saudi Arabia and Eygpt and Lebanon (the countries from where all the 9/11 attackers came from) and that he has proof that the antrhrax came from Iraq. Then I will gladly repudiate all my objections to war with Iraq and go along with you.
And FYI: Clinton was also "my president" and I never trusted that disgrace and traitor for one inch. If you assume that because I am a registered Republican and a conservative that I trust Bush any more than Clinton because he shares my labels than you are neither a GOP member or conservative. ONly liberals and leftists believe in the infallibility of "leaders". I don't have a "leader" and never will.