[ex-snook]

"Bush has never ONCE said Saddam is THE threat; quite the opposite, he has repeatedly stated that the war on terrorism will be a long, ongoing process. "

Then if Saddam is not the threat, why did Bush decide to bomb Iraq first? Nah, the Pope is right on this. This is about regime change, oil, or Israel and not terrorist threat.

[Jhoffa_]

Then if Saddam is not the threat, why did Bush decide to bomb Iraq first?

I honestly don't think it matters what it's about. Saddam has it coming and we have the moral high ground.

All he had to do was keep the deal he made and disarm.. If he had done so, US troops in Iraq would be nothing more than a faded memory.

[DED]

He's taking on Saddam first because this is the enemy we can SEE, and he was in a position to give some really nasty WMD's to the ones we CAN'T see.
Besides, the guy has reportedly snuffed out a million people over the last 20 years; isn't that reason enough?
Yes, I DO know there are other world leaders that have been equally horrendous, but we can't go after them all - we had enough trouble getting going with THIS one.

[cookcounty]

"Then if Saddam is not the threat, why did Bush decide to bomb Iraq first? Nah, the Pope is right on this. This is about regime change, oil, or Israel and not terrorist threat.

Where have you been? In Saddam, you have the unique convergence of a dictator working desperately to build WMD that has A) already invaded his neighbors, B) alraedy used WMD on his neighbors, and B) already used WMD against his own people more than once. This can be said of no other dictator (No, not even Kim Jong-il).