I can. I've been studying him for 16 years. Saddam made no secret of the fact that he donated ground for taining, funded and exported terrorism. That alone made him a prime target of the war on terror as outlined by the president after 9/11/01.
IMO, the administration erred seriously in allowing the left to twist the terrorism question into nothing but a WMD question. The wisdom was that listing all the reasons would confuse the average American. Instead what the administration did was play into the left's hands.
Saddam was in material breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1441: he did not account for his missing WMD, intimidated inspectors, bugged their offices and his operatives were uncooperative and unhelpful (source, Hanx Blix) Those weapons remain unaccounded for.
Saddam violated 1141 again when he ordered a UN sanctioned and sealed U2 fired on, after agreeing to allow a run....but I don't know if anyone remembers that. The UN was pathetically eager to believe his "it was an honest mistake" explanation.
In fact, Saddam was in material breach of every single UN resolution through his refusal to comply. He was thereby in material breech of the terms of his surrender agreement. ,p>For 12 years the world played cat and mouse games with Saddam while he and corrupt officials, media personalities and corperations profited from the oil for food scam. In the meantime, he was free to export terrorism and cause thousands of deaths a year while paying foreign media types and politicians to spread his particular brand of Soviet style propaganda and keep his benevolent self in power, while causing untold suffering to his own people.
During that 12 years he was an exceptional threat to the stability of the Mideast.
You may believe Iraq is better off without Saddam. That's true. The world is safer and better off without him, too. It will take a long time to begin reversing the damage Saddam did.