No, you didn't quite answer my three points. Your justification basically is that there was no guarantee that Saddam Hussein would not use his "supposed" WMD's. First of, for this to be valid, Bush needed to bolster his claim with solid and concrete sets of evidence. He did not do so, as most of his so-called "proofs" were either subjective or just plain wrong. Secondly, if Bin Laden declares Saddam a kuffar, future coordination between him and Saddam is basically a stretch. The doctrine of preemption is basically a gamble, because the future cannot be predicted. The neocons are the ones behind the Saddam Hussein debacle. As you know, Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld had drafted a letter in the 1990's to Bill Clinton to depose Saddam Hussein because of his threat. Clinton did not cave in to pressure from the neocons, as containment was working perfectly. Wolfowitz even had a plan to invade Iran. Pat Buchanan, a paleocon and a true conservative, has a book out about how neoconservatives, many of whom were ex-trotskyites and socialists, have hijacked and shaped the Bush presidency. As he correctly points out, many of them have sympathy to the Israeli cause. In fact, there are some people working in the Bush presidency who are also citizens of Israel. John Stuart brought Seymor Hirsch--the guy who first promulgated the Abu Ghraib scandal-- a few days ago, and he was cringing at the thought of the next Bush presidency. It's the neocons that are the problem. Bush is just a sheep. Paleocons like Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak are isolationists and believe that we should first be focusing on securing our own borders. He also elucidates the fact that we should sit on the fence on the Israel-Palestine problem, rather than support Israel obstinately. I at least respect Buchanan for his neutral approach.