>John,
>
>I am not a part of the law enforcement profession, but I do watch Law and Order. So lets try some of the terms I've learned there:
>
>1) The neocons wrote a document in the early 90s that's common knowledge. This document describes their belief that in order to create a more stable Middle East region a democracy must be created there that will spread thru out the region. Their analysis selected Iraq for this experiment for reasons I don't recall. But they thought it would be easiest there.
>
>I believe this document was put together after the first gulf war. So the document was created after many experts had decided not to topple Sadam. They saw a region that could either a) Fall into civil war due to all the various factions there or b) Become an ally of Iran, becoming another fundamentalist nation in the process. Both these scenarios were regarded as far worse then having Sadam there.
>
>2) In the last several yrs, many people have come forward with various descriptions of the modus operandi of the current administration. Including (but not limited to) 1) Ricard Clarke describing how there was a desire to tie Iraq to 9-11, 2) those responsible for making decisions not wanting to hear a disenting voice. The marginalization of Colin Powell is a clear example of what happens to those who voice a contrary opinion. He tried to yell and scream "you break it you own it".
>
>I believe if you were to fully analyze the timeline of events after 9-11 you would be able to clearly establish motive and intent to topple Sadam for reasons other then 9-11.
>
>
I believe we took him out because it was believed he was intent on supporting terrorism, was bent on regaining CWs and other WMDs. He HAD to be removed whether he was responsible for 9/11 or not.