The writer of this article presupposes that the Administration's fighting stance is wrong to begin with, and discounts any further statements that support how they've planted their feet. But after the evidence that has been presented in multiple forums, most recent being the Blair Dossier that was presented to the House of Commons this morning, as I said, at the very least some of it must have some measure of truth about it.
Saddam Hussain has demonstrated that he not only desires to acquire WMD, but that he has no qualms over using said weapons on his own people, as well as on others. He has stated publicly that he supports the terrorist activities of Palestinian militant organizations who have been responsible for terrorist attacks in Israel, and has gone as far as to provide fiscal support to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.
Given that fact, it is not a far supposition to expect that Saddam would at least consider the use of WMD against Israel.
He has already gassed his own citizens, there's no reason not to expect it again.
Multiple sources point to evidence of complicity with Al Qaeda forces tied to WTC'01, and to ongoing efforts by Al Qaeda to spread their brand of radical terror across the globe.
I'm sure that there is additional evidence that is not in the public purview, simply because the Adminstration does not wish to provide intel to any enemy forces by way of the reporting mechanism of the press.
In an attempt to stave off any efforts by the US in terms of a pre-emptive strike, Saddam fired off a letter to the UN claiming to be ready to allow "unfettered access" to weapons inspectors. Ah, but then comes word of limitations on what these inspectors can inspect, and where they can inspect them. So much for "unfettered access," yes?
At this juncture, given all of the supporting evidence, I would much rather eliminate Saddam's WMD apparatus, and while we're at it, remove him from power. I would dare say that he has more than a bottle-rocket with a handful of anthrax on it now, and if we leave him to his own devices, he'll have something pretty soon with a hell of a much bigger punch than the handful of bottle rockets that he's got.
Contrary to the belief of some here, this is not simply a matter of any sort of usurping of the power of the Constitution. This is a matter of our very survival. I would much rather be here arguing the merits of this at this point next year, rather than driving as a refugee because Saddam has found a way to drop a crude nuke into downtown Atlanta or Birmingham during rush hour. And if that means throwing our weight around this fragile china shop, so be it. We can sweep up when we're done.
I would make one comment on the points you raised about Israel however, they have no need of our assistance in dealing with Iraq. They are more than capable, and quite willing to deal with him severely. I have not seen the administration make the case for war by suggesting that we would do it to defend Israel. Maybe I missed something on that score, if so please tell me when that case has been made, thanks again for your comments.