To: Mary Cluney who wrote (70922 ) 9/16/2004 1:18:32 PM From: Nadine Carroll Respond to of 793782 But even if you are right that Saddam Hussein wished he could harm us with WMD, the fact is he didn't have WMD Don't fixate on the WMDs, Mary. They were the least of the problem. They were put forth as a legal case for the UN. Big mistake. The problem was what a victorious Saddam was going to do the Middle East, number one, and what the terrorists Saddam trained & supplied were going to do to us, number two.Perhaps we didn't know better, but knowing what we know now, the Iraqi people do not want us there. What will it take for the Iraqi people to prove to you that they do not want us there? They sure as heck don't want Saddam back. They don't want a Khomenei style theocracy. They don't want Wahabbi style theocracy, either. So what do they want? The Iraqis are not happy with the way the occupation has gone, and want their own government, which they support by 75% + even though it is an American-installed government at present, to succeed & impose order. They want a strong secular country. Perhaps we didn't know any better, but knowing what we know now, Iraq had no connection to 911. The 911 commission has clearly stated that. The President has supported the 911 commission report. What will it take to change your mind? I never thought Saddam had anything to do with the planning of 9/11, so I don't have to change my mind. It was Saddam's connection to terrorists - his homebrew guys, the Pal terrorists, Ansar al Islam, and the contacts he had to AQ, that worried me. The same 911 commission that found Saddam had no share in planning 911, found that he did have numerous contacts with AQ.<<<If America could win in Iraq, the Arabs would once again acquire some respect (ie fear) for American power.>>> Who else share this opinion? Lots of people, it's the basic neocon position. Kristol. Perle. Rumsfeld. Cheney. Gerecht. etc. etc.