Bill

Still vert flimsy - the ABC article sites "officials." What "officials" are these? Are the the same ones seeking re-election this fall...?

Are they the same "officials" who told us that that Saddam had an active program for building nukes...?

Once again - no real proof...

Well, considering that Saddam did have an active program for building nukes back in the early 80's, I'm not sure why those unnamed officials would have a credibility problem.

Apparently Richard Cohen, and a lot of his ilk, have not received the message. Note his column in today's Washington Post "Consistently Disconnected". I hate it when people are arrogant and do not know of what they speak.

Um, we've been over this before. Once more for the slow learners...

Even if we now find evidence that Saddam and al Qaeada were linked (keeping in mind that as late as last February the head of al Qaeada, Osama bin Laden, was publicly calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein) we still didn't have that evidence before the war. When this was pointed out a year ago, Bill and friends were jumping up and down yelling "but Bush never said that!" Now, it's "see, we told you so".

Odd.

This is like the whole non-existent WMD program, so I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere. Saddam ranks among the top 50 or so most evil men of all recorded history. A WMD program or al Qaeada link isn't going to change that. And the lack of either of those isn't going to change it either.

When you see someone who says "Gee, no WMD's, we musta got this Saddam guy all wrong, the man's an Eagle Scout" then come talk to me. Until then, you might as well quit beating this drum. It's been broken for a long time...

Michael, we're not saying "see, we told you so" re the Saddam-Zarqawi-al Qaeda connection. We are simply pointing out the the LEFT is wrong when it said there was no such connection. It is true, Bush did not claim such a connection before the invasion. The evidence was, at best, sketchy. But post-invasion the evidence has been uncovered in IRAQ, imagine that. Also, I linked to it a few weeks ago, there is now more evidence that, contrary to what the CIA said 2 years ago, 9/11 lead hijacker M. Atta did indeed meet with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague before the 9/11 attack.

We already know that Iraqi Ramzi Yousef was involved with al Qaeda and the 1993 WTC bombing. We already know that Zarqawi had Iraq/Saddam links pre-invasion. We already know that Abu Nidal, not al Qaeda but still a major terrorist, was given support by Iraq. We already know Saddam funded Palestinian suicide bombings. We already know he sent terrorists to try to kill Bush 41.

I have a hunch that we'll find more and more evidence of links between Saddam and AQ as we continue to sift through the mountains of documents in Iraq. The amount of evidence is only going to mount.

I, for one, am glad we did not wait to remove Saddam until we had solid evidence of his links to Islamo-wackjob terrorism. I, for one, am glad we got rid of him before he could pass Sarin along to Zarqawi. Actually, he might have done so - an al Qaeda attempt to release a chemical weapon that would have killed tens of thousands in Jordan was thwarted, and the chemicals seized. AQ got them from some body, and Iraq is right next door.

As for Osama calling for Saddam's ouster last year, Michael, do you actually mean we are to believe Osama bin Laden? Is OBL credible and trustworthy?

His statement could have been a political smokescreen. If you're Osama and Saddam is a secret patron, you don't want him removed by the Americans. You know that if you hug Saddam, he's toast. You also know that the UN and the French are trying to stop the invasion on grounds that include the claim that Saddam has no links to al Qaeda. So, you issue a statement that you loathe Saddam and want him gone figuring that, if the Americans go ahead and invade and oust Saddam, you have hedged your bets and can claim to the Iraqi people to be on their side in hopes of having enough Iraqis to rise up against the American occupiers.

Iraq War

Stepping back in order to see the forest, be you conservative or liberal, forces your inner-most heart to admit that Iraq was a retro-response, a slingshot reaction, a "filler" for the war on terrorism. Facts regarding WMDs, al Qaeda links exist but ARE sketchy. Proven links are NOT solid. All we KNOW is that certain men were seen in the showroom but NOT seen BUYING the car. Iraq should have been placed on the back burner until our evidence was beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that Saddam was a tyrant didn't justify the war. The fact that women were oppressed, Kurds were murdered, and atrocities were prevolent should not be connected with 911's reaction. If we wanted to eliminate Saddam because he was evil, we should have gone in with that printed on our war flag. But because our justification dubiously trickles in, the the U.S. HAS lost more credibility with the world. The billions spent so far in Irag hasn't recompensed a single 911 victim or their loved ones but has placed us in more financial stress.

I'm 51 and have never voted anything but Republican. The Iraq war is a big enough political decoy to make me look elsewhere for leadership. The fact that many Democrats signed onto Bush's Iraq war is not evidentiary of its justification - they were simply duped on the WMD issue - an honest mistake and one upon which Colan Powell, the Admin's former pawn, loses sleep even today.

Glenn Disney