Please explain how Saddam can be a terrorist when you claim McCain was "More than just palling around with terroists" (comment yours) in reference to McCain, but you argue that the Iraq front in the war against terrorism was not needed, since Iraq (ergo Saddam) had no ties to 'terrorism'.

Please provide links other than from the Daily Kooks bloggers many of whom still argue that 9-11 was a US / CIA / Illuminati / George Bush conspiracy.

Even CBS and MSDNC report that a simple petroleum based fuel fire can cause a steel / cement structure to collapse.

But I guess you would prefer the citizens of Iraq to still be living under a terrorist today? Oh wait, Saddam wasn't a terrorist, so we should have never gone into Iraq to begin with.

Which is it?