[Kevin Curry]

And why must Bush prove Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11? Would it not be enough if he is convinced Hussein is aiding and abetting in the hatching of new 9-11 slaughters?

I do not understand why any rational person would consider it immoral to strike a coiled snake until the snake has struck first.

[missileboy]

We agree - If Bush could show that Hussein is aiding and abetting in the hatching of new 9-11 slaughters, then I have no problem puttting a Tomahawk up his ass and turning Baghdad into non-fertile desert soil for the next 50 years.

The problem, though, as discussed in my previous rant, is that Bush either does not have, or else cannot show, such evidence. Therefore, your question is entirely hypothetical.