". There is ample evidence from decidely non-Conservative groups like Human Rights Watch that Saddam has killed scores of thousands of his people. "

Yep, sure is. He is the moral equivalent of hitler. Why does this justify war, and why do we play cozy love-bird with other merderous dictators who do the same thing.

"There is ample evidence that he has used WMD against both the Iranians and the Kurds. He is a murderous thug of the worst sort."

Yes, And he gassed the Kurds and the Iranians while he was our friend. Why now, 20 years later, do we try to drag this up as a justification for war. Bogus and dishonest!

"There is evidence that suggests Saddam does indeed have links to al Qaeda. "

I can't BELIEVE that YOU are pawning something from the EDITORIAL page of the WSJ as a source justifying war! A base OPED! Plus, the piece was devoid of any substantial evidence, simply allegation.

Again NOT ONE ACT OF INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM LINKED TO IRAQ IN ALL HISTORY. dozens to Egypt, Syria, Iran etc, but NOT ONE to Iraq.

"Time will tell once we get access to Iraqi documents and personnel."

Great, so shoot first and justify in retrospect? Like heck! Its still murder if it you can't justify it!

" The US Congress voted to depose Saddam in 1998. This is just an enactment of that policy. "

Thats a crock too, Larry. If it had voted to depose saddam "solely through act of force" (which it DID NOT in 1998), then you would ONLY have that congress has authorized this war. So what? How does this make a case for war? How does it justify it?

Congress has voted for a great number of things, and that doesn't *necessarily*
1) Make them right, or the action right
2) make the action justified on any other grounds

This is no Reason, cause, justification or case for war. Its all just anorexic bull.

Davin