I knew about the meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent. However, the meeting is not sufficient grounds for an invasion. At a minimum Atta would have had to share information about the impending 9/11 attack with the Iraqi intelligence agent. Given the overwhelming emphasis on secrecy common in terrorist organizations, I doubt Atta shared that information at a meeting in a public place or anywhere else. After all, Atta apparently did not even share the full plan with all of his fellow 9/11 terrorists.
DeLay does present a good argument that Hussein is a brutal dictator, but none of that information is new. Iraq just does not represent a threat to our security.
And surely you don't think an individual as infamous as Abu Nidal lived in Baghdad without his knowledge and therefore his acquiescence do you?
Not in and of itself, but you'd asked for evidence specifically linking al queda to Iraq, and that is one item I'd heard. Still, I agree that "DeLay does present a good argument that Hussein is a brutal dictator...", and while I don't think it's America's role to rid the world of every brutal dictator via invasion, Hussein's an excellent example to make for the rest of the brutal dictators and those who might be considering overthrowing them in favor of a government more representative of the Sheeple.
How long have we been dealing with the problems in the Middle East and the potential problems this powderkeg presents to the Security of the World? You're fooling yourself if you believe Hussein isn't looking to join the nuclear club, and when you factor in what he was willing to do to his own people via gassing the Kurds, well, I simply believe we're sticking our heads in the sand if we think we can ignore Hussein and he won't proceed along the track until he's rattlin' sabres with nukes in his arsenal. So, if we can agree on that, why would we wait to take him out, especially when there is so much to be gained in other MiddleEast countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.) by making an example of Sodom?
"Iraq just does not represent a threat to our security."
The Clinton Administration made it through eight years making the same argument about Terrorism...after 9/11/01, I don't believe Dubyuh's equally spineless about Iraq.
FReegards...MUD
BTW...if you're looking for public testimony and photographs of Sodom Hussein and Osama bil Clinton, er, bin Laden together as your evidence to justify an Iraqi Invasion, you'll still be waiting for that long AFTER Sodom's been captured or killed by U.S. Forces. As Travis McGee's been pointing out about WWII, providing said evidence prior to an attack will compromise sources and endanger American soldiers' lives, IMHO. However, as they do in the Police Departments after killing a perp, I do believe post-Regime Change dialogue will prove--beyond a shadow of a doubt--that taking out Sodom, sooner rather than later, will indeed be "a good shoot."