No, I am really not comparing the war with Iraq to the war on terrorism, per se. What I am trying to better understand is why it is that we went to war with Iraq in the first place. You bring up the 475,000 UN resolutions, it think there were actually fourteen. Correct me if I am wrong, but most of these, if not all, dealt with WMD. Since no WMD were found; then how many UN resloutions was Iraq in violation of? Did this, in and of itself, make the war an unjust one? I think so, but I know not all would agree.

If you take out the WMD argument - and so far you have to based on the evidence to date - then what other argument, or arguments, gave us the right and necessity to attack Iraq? Well, I thought maybe terrorism. So, I needed evidence, which I have not found, nor do I believe has the President and his administration found. For if they did, then they surely would have brought them up, no? Remember how in Bush's 2003 State OF the Union Address, he mentioned , on more than one occassion, Saddam and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, in the same sentence. Almost as if he was trying to link Saddam in some way with them; without actually coming out and saying it. Was he trying to plant a seed?

Again, I am just trying to better understand Bush, the war with Iraq, and why people, to this day, people still support Bush and his war with Iraq. It seems that the war on terror and the war with Iraq are completly different. Though I believe Bush did try to link the two. I, however, support the war on terror, as futile as I think it is, but I never have, nor will, support the war with Iraq.