The show-trial of (though some conclude against) Saddam Hussein continues as of this writing. [Any relation to the beloved King "Hussein" of Jordan?]

Perhaps this webauthor's hopefully-somewhat-accurate view of recent history will add insight to you viewers out there in cyberspace.

As I remember (and I hope my facts are straight about this), Saddam launched an attack of non-nuclear conventional weapons in the early 90s of the 20th century against who he considered his wayward arab brothers in Kuwait ("wayward" because of their commercial-oil commerce with the summertime-immodest United States). Then Bush Sr. came to the half-successful slap-on-the-wrist aid of quasi-ally Kuwait with more-or-less conventional weapons of questionable nature.

It was during that time that Russian-made Scud missiles, apparently launched from Iraq, landed inside Tel Aviv and Haifa which did some non-lethal buildings damage. This was accompanied by what the questionable american media said was alleged anti-America anti-Israel rhetoric in news-clip speeches the media associated with Saddam.

Since then, there have been american-media reports of Saddam purportedly hosting Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, and funding the families of suicide bombers inflicting terroristic genoicide within parts of Israel.

It seems that that attack against America's ally, Israel, was a major cause why Bush Jr. and the U.S. military attacked Saddam, his Baathists, and all Iraq. Added to that, Bush probably considered Saddam's intent to not sell foreign oil to America, and adversely influence arab-brothers OPEC to also not sell foreign oil to America, justification for attack against the entire infrastructure of sovereign Iraq.

Why did not Bill Clinton simply designate a CIA hitman to take Saddam out of the picture when Monica's Billy had the chance? Well, it is much like the situation where if Bush was assassinated, rather-like-minded Cheney would take over, and if Cheney was then assassinated, the rather-like-minded Republican Speaker of the House would take over, and so on. Similarly, if Bush had ordered a CIA hitman to assassinate Saddam, Saddam's like-minded lieutenants would have taken over. Thus, the attack on and against all Iraq.

As I believe it is now, Saddam's legal status is in the quasi-hands of "the Iraqi people" government (puppet government of the U.S. military wanting non-veiled women in charge more than bearded islamic-fundamentalist men), but Saddam's physical detention is under the real-hands control of the U.S. military. So, Saddam is free to defend himself and make his case during his showcase "trial" (as of this writing). If it continues, he is following the path Adolf Hitler took in his comfortable and protected confinement within that pleasant and picturesque Bavarian country-club prison where Nazi-party visitors were allowed to see him as he wrote Mein Kampf. Thus, Saddam is slipping through the cracks, and if such continues, might eventually become Secretary General of the United Nations and get the Nobel Peace Prize on top of it. Certainly if John Kerry had been elected instead of Bush, Saddam's rise to U.N. leadership would probably have been much quicker, in that Kerry probably would have sheepishly turned Saddam over to food-for-oil Kofi with the nonsense immentality of "human rights."

But, according to fair and just international law, do Bush and America have a case against Saddam? Does the Law of War supercede the Law of Constitutional Courts? Can enemy combatants be detained indefinitely without access to the parole-and-plea-bargaining injustice of the U.S. Judicial Branch of American government? If Sovereign Country A attacks Sovereign Country B, when Sovereign Country B has not overtly attacked Sovereign Country A, is such attack justified?

It all depends upon what one defines as "overt" attack. Without using the childish term "weapons of mass destruction" (which the U.S. themselves have PLENTY of), which ridiculous WMD term sounds like it was made up by some feminist-twit two-year-old, we can realistically assume that most sovereign countries now in existence have adequate supplies of print-and-screen porn, rap noise, plus nerve-gas and nuclear-material aids for self-defense. Iraq was and is no exception (with possible exclusion pertaining to the erotic pix and obnoxious noise alluded to).

However, both times the U.S. invaded Iraq (Gulf War I and Gulf War II), Iraq did NOT have the means of conveyance to deliver those weapons to attack America, and therefore obviously never did attack the U.S. with such weapons.

In contrast, the United States has a well-developed arsenal and network of fully-functional ICBM missiles with standy nuclear warheads and Patriot-type air-to-air missiles to adversely convey far more than what was witnessed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. Iraq never had such ICBM conveyances. One important difference is that the U.S. never had intention of acting as a hostile threat to disagreeable sovereign nations, whereas Saddam's apparent rhetoric of called America and Israel "the Great Satan" was the opposite. To summarize, Iraq, in that sense, posed no "overt" threat worthy of invasion and attack.

The second means of conveyance, other than ICBM missile conveyance, is conveyance by an organized group of well-supplied soldiers to personally deliver genocidal destruction. Saddam and his Baathists never had and thus never used such an army to personally deliver genocidal attack on homeland America.

To my knowledge, there is no proof that Atta and his cellphones-unified group of suicide hijackers who destroyed the NYC Trade Towers and part of the Pentagon were directly affiliated with nor tactically operating under specific military orders from Saddam or his Baathist cabinet. To misconsider than the 19 crazy islamic kamakazes who did havoc on 9112001 were an invading Iraqi army is not only a ridiculous misconstruence and laughable presumption, but is a humiliating record of the pathetic state of American security to allow such to happen and largely to blame. However, in a situation where Vince Foster's devious Hillary Clinton was Senator of NY state, and where ACLU/PAW/AUSCS/PP/NOW-consorting voting-wrong-on-sexual-issues Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, and other demoncrats with turncoat republicans, cast a long shadow of anti-Christian tyranny against unhindered operation of security forces, along with short-skirted Condi Rice being the weaker-sex inferior-gender NSA funnel both the CIA and FBI were reluctant to trust intelligence to....in the tradition of Freeh-bound shoot-Ruby-Ridge and burn-the-Waco-camp Janet Reno....the 19 murderous kooks who accessed the nonforeign weapons of American jetliners through Boston airport with the high-tech armaments of box cutters were nonstoppable because of insidious forget-the-Bible-in-public-schools satanically-ordered-amd-enforced "civil rights" of "nondiscrimination." To summarize, Iraq, in that sense posed no "overt" threat worthy of invasion and attack.

So, WHAT WAS the excuse Bush used to invade Iraq? Clearly, it was preemptive, almost like when a cop arrests someone they presume is guilty of a crime, or a judge convicts someone of a crime, which crime the accused never committed at all. Bush, though, in his Divinely-inspired Spirit-of-Jesus Christian wisdom and foresight, saw that noncooperative lone-wolf-president Saddam - if not stopped - would have soon and irreparably caused national-security damage to both the United States and Israel (within which genuine saints and destined-to-become-saints of the true God reside within) would never have been able to recover from. No sovereign-nation president in his right mind would have the audacity to not only thumb his nose against the presidents of other sovereign nations and not politely group together with them in summit meetings even if he did not like them, like what they were doing, nor like who they were allied with....but then go beyond and take physical steps to actualize his nose-thumbing in serious acts of indirect hostility, especially relating to crucial-for-survival and vital world-oil commerce.

What both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. did by invading Iraq in Gulf War I and Gulf War II was like when Matt Dillon on Gunsmoke drew his gun faster than the bad guy in another gunfight after the bad guy (who might or might not have been an accurate shot) drew first against Matt - reminiscent of what occurred in the Old-Testament book of Judges chapter 11.

When Bush is no longer president, only the Lord knows what will become of Saddam if Saddam is yet around to become. He has many contacts who are rabidly antisemitic on the planet. And as Saint Paul did not understand the mystery of lawlessness rife and reeking (and to reek) within the immoral majority on the broad and easy road to destruction then, now, and hereafter [leading up to the upcoming Global Antichrist mentioned in Revelation chapter 13], neither does this webauthor.