...If Saddam had sheltered al-Qeda members and refused to hand them over then I would have supported an invasion on those grounds. As things stand, with the "proof" that I have seen, it seems to me that putting invasion (or whatever Dan wants me to call it) of Iraq in "the war on terrorism" was more of a way to drum up support for the invasion of Iraq.

This series of excerpts is instructive, although the source credibilty varies. Bin Laden was offered sanctuary in Iraq, but refused. While I have not seen evidence that bin Laden was ever in Iraq, despite the spin being put on it by the anti-war folks it was entirely plausible that he would cooperate with Saddam, particularly with weapons under the table, and no doubt this was part of the decision on invasion.

...Though, I'd have to guess about your inductive assertions about most Iraqis and most attackers, I would guess they are true as well.

It's obvious on the face of it, even just by observation. If 22 million Iraqis were trying to drive us out of the country, I would expect a few more than a couple of hundred American casualties. I would expect constant protests, sabotage on all levels, and cooperation with the guerrillas instead of turning them over to us. In an actual survey, only 13 percent wanted us to leave immediately.

The composition and widely-varied nationality (mostly from other countries) of captured and killed guerrilla attackers is a matter of record.