I think one of the points made, and one of the questions asked but not answered, is why is Iraq step two? WE DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE OF THAT AND CANNOT PRODUCE IT. I feel much more immediate danger from Dearborn, MI and from the followers of Farrakhan in Chicago than I do from Saddam.
Even if I were to see evidence of involvement, I would ask, what's next after step two--whether the other countries get the message or not? Even if they do not and we take them out, then what do we do? Do we set up an American hegemony there? No, we cannot. Then what? Go after other Islamic nations or nations with large Islamic populations? Are we going to Indonesia? China? Even England and Germany? We are setting ourselves up for disaster, IMHO.
No, one of the main answers to the question of what to do is the immigration question--the very one that Pat Buchanan raised (BTW I voted for Bush, not Buchanan).
This is where we differ. You believe if we do anything, we are heading for disaster. I believe if we do NOT do something, we are heading for disaster.
I will admit it would be much easier if a country had declared war against us rather than an idealogy, but we are in a war even if you can not see it.
There is a cancer alive in this world today called terrorism. For over 40 years, the nations of the world have treated these terrorist acts as a crime. The terrorist have a certain advantage when we treat it as a crime. They lose that advantage when we treat it as war.
The nation states in the middle east have been able to support terrorist with very little down side to themself. President Bush has put them on notice, no more.
What is step three you ask, I don't know but it is not too late for these countries to take themself out of contention for that honor.
So you wait for your "proof" I only hope it is not one of loved ones the die so you can be morally certain who to go after.