>The USA invaded Iraq because of information supplied by ex-patriot Iraqis who wanted Sudaam removed. The information was skewed.
>
>Whether there were or weren't WMDs....facts of Hussein's repeated violations of U.N. resolutions following Desert Storm are indisputable:
>
>- Torture, rape, and murder of political dissidents in Iraq
>- Taking money and resources sent as aid for the country, and using it for his own gain
>- Paying 25-30K for families of Palestinian suicide bombers
>- Attempting to purchase nuclear material from the Russian black market
>- Refusing to cooperate with the U.N. Security Council UNSCOM
>
>Additionally, to this day, the Czech secret service has never backed down from their reports that when bin Laden had $$$ difficulties in late 1990's with a growing Al Qaeda movement, Hussein used state funds to help bankroll bin Laden.
>
>The debate on whether we should have gotten involved with Iraq can go on and on (and there is no question that Bush had unrealistic expecations about success in Iraq) - but these facts are indisputable. The UN repeatedly warned Iraq about serious consequences if Hussein continued with violations.


As I think you will recall, the UN did not approve this invasion. They spent months looking for WMD and didn't find a firecracker, as someone observed.

Any links between Iraq and Al Qaeda are entirely speculative. The Czech secret service? What would they know about what's going on in the middle east that others wouldn't know? Moscow, maybe. Baghdad, highly doubtful.

Was Saddam a good guy, a beneficent leader? Of course not. Neither are the leaders of many other countries. We don't run around invading them.