If Iran is regarded as the #1 terrorism threat, and if Iran is known to be close to developing nuclear weapons, why isn't it regarded as the #1 target for people wanting to combat terrorism?

Doesn't that make sense?

There is no credible evidence Saddam is close to nukes. There is that evidence for Iran. And, the Iranians just successfully tested a medium range missile. I don't belive Iraq has those. Their Scuds seemed more like chemically powered slingshots. Missiles, would hit something, but they didn't know what.

Is it that Saddam is a sore point for the First Father, and Iraqi oil looks good to the Vice President and President? I mean, Halliburton must want something for that $24 million severance package to Cheney. I don't think companies like that just throw away money like that. Wouldn't be prudent. (Might have been an example of "compassionate capitalism", though.)

I would think the powers that be would go after the bigger, more credible threat unless there were another agenda. Unless "combating terrorism" isn't the issue for them.

Arf