9.11.01 and the rise of terrorism have change the rules of the game. Are you saying that we should trust saddam not to sell, give , or give access to bin laden and his gang iraq's MWD. And we should wait for the smoking chemical, and bio weapons to explode in our face because we want the french's, and german's approval before we take saddam out?
I hope that's not what you mean.
9/11? We were attacked with box cutters not WMD. How does that anything to do with Iraq at all? 19 men got into this country and highjacked four planes with box cutters. No chemicals, No bio weapons, no nukes. And besides Sadaam there are a dozen other countries with crazy dictators that WMD programs that don't like us. We lived with it before 9/11- hell we lived with it for 50 years. I don't think you appreciate what a revolutionary foreign policy doctrine Bush is extolling. Why anyone would expect the rest of the world- even our allies- to accept a foreign policy that reserves the right to premptively attack
percieved threats to us is beyond me. What Bush wants- an unprovoked attack against Iraq (quibble all you want- that is what it will be) is revolutionary in world diplomatic history. To expect the rest of the world to passively accept that and be happy with it is not realistic.
Could the Iraqi's give WMD to AQ and could it be used here and kill thousands? Yes. Just as easily a rouge Russian mercenary nuclear scientist could be working right now in a cave somewhere building a suitcase nuke for AQ as well. Is invading Iraq going to make us more or less likely to be the target of terrorist attack in the future? Many things could happen. It still doesn't mean it is going to. Bush's foreign policy is very radical and a break from hundreds of years of tradition and diplomatic history. It is radical and radical change brings about a million unforseen consequences.