I ran across the argument that while Saddam certainly had “bad thoughts,” he had no ability to act on those bad thoughts (“bad thoughts” was the phrase used to try to downplay the threat of action, no doubt). My argument was:
I think firing on our planes was a bit more than “bad thoughts.” I think Saddam’s attempts to circumvent and undermine the sanctions were more than bad thoughts. I think his use of poison gas and development of biological warfare agents was more than “bad thoughts.” You speak of a man that has a big mouth and no intent of ever following through–someone like Hugo Chavez. Saddam was not a rabble rowser like Hugo. He’d used chemical agents with no braggadocio or strutting. In fact, his history was repleat with “plausible deniability.” You’re trying to project traits on the man that don’t hold up historically. And he had proven that he wanted revenge on the US no matter what the consequences.
Saddam was a psychopath with the intent, the wealth, and the connections to make him an imminent threat overnight. Your choosing to ignore his history doesn’t change those facts.
Three days and counting for a response…