[palmer]

I'll have to read more through all those links. But the Salman Pak thing is kind of amusing: it is alleged that Saddam trained terrorists to hijack planes using box-cutters there. I think it is much more likely that the terrorists thought that part up themselves without any training.

[jpl]

There is plenty of evidence directly connecting Saddam to several direct attacks on America, including (but probably not limited to) the assassination attempt on former President Bush, the original 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and some (if not all) of the anthrax letters mailed shortly after 9/11.

[Dr. Frank fan]

But the Salman Pak thing is kind of amusing: it is alleged that Saddam trained terrorists to hijack planes using box- cutters there. I think it is much more likely that the terrorists thought that part up themselves without any training.

It's very touching how you're willing to forgive any involvement Saddam may have had in such training, as long as the technology / ideas used in the attack which resulted was sufficiently lo-tech. "Yeah, maybe Saddam provided a training base for 'em, but really, they could've thought that up themselves anyway. So let's cut Saddam some slack."

To me, the important questions are, Is Saddam our enemy? Does he try to attack us? Or help people to attack us? If so, then I don't give a rat's ass what the surrogates use to attack us; it's the attacking that's the issue here.

It's not clear what the issue is, to you. Besides making sure we don't attack Saddam, of course.