Curtis, if you believe that Pres. Bush "targeted Saddam Houssein specifically, not Iraq", can you see the dilemna that presents? I can not think of any war the US has been involved with that had that basis. And that is my problem with what this represents. If the US can go after the head of a sovereign state with no threat of danger from that sovereign state and no evidence of acts of war from that sovereign state against us, can't you see how we have legitimized that action for any other country - possibly against the US itself? The old saw that all is fair in love and war is not true. The leaders have always protected themselves personally against the ravages of war. What would stop N. Korea from saying that Bush is a devil and try to assasinate him with their military? This, I think, was the root of the United Nations reluctance to support the President's actions. There are rules in war - assasination by military falls outside the rules.

In regards to the President's statement today, so there is a connection between Sadaam and Al Quaeda but no Iraq involvement in 9/11? Now there's a surprise. Osama Bin Laden's family, being one of the biggest Construction Companies in the Middle East. I expect that we could find a connection betwwen Al Quaeda and:

Saudi Arabian leaders
Pakistani leaders
Iranian leaders
Syrian leaders
Yemeni leaders
German leaders
Spanish leaders
and even the United States leaders

What in the world does a "connection between Sadaam and Al Quaeda" mean? What was the quality of that connection, where are the facts of the depth of the connection? When will we get these answers? Personally, I have serious doubts about the credibility of this President and his Administration. I've seen lots of Presidents lie, this is not news. I have never seen a President's lies have the kind of costs that this one has incurred.