I think it's ironic that people who never even thought about Saddam a year ago suddenly think it's more important than life itself to get him. You've been duped by the old "look, behind you!" trick.

I always thought that good people had morals, and they stood by them. Terrorists are the ones who use violence to get their way. Guess who fits the definition of terrorist in this case?

After 9/11, the mandate was to go after Al Qaeda, not Saddam. Some people have been using sweeping generalizations in making excuses why Saddam should be included. The problem is that those sweeping generalizations say that we should be attacking half the world. If we are really and truly going after real threats, why are we not going after N. Korea, or Pakistan for that matter? Please, don't bother saying "but Pakistan is cooperating with us..."! I know a double standard when I see one.

Saddam is an easy target. Iraq has been under siege for a dozen years, and is an "easy kill" as a result. I think that Bush picked a weak country to attack for his own glory. But weak countries are not what threatens us.

Let's not forget that the reason why Al Qaeda chose the WTC to attack on 9/11 was to bring financial ruin to the USA. Al Qaeda failed to do that, but Bush is picking up right where Al Qaeda left off. The US is already broke; we can't afford this war. So those of you who are cheering for this war are really cheering for Al Qaeda to win. Way to go, guys.