Saddam was afraid to admit to not having weapons because he feared his immediate enemy nations, Iran and Israel. He seemed to think he could slip the US's questions and interest, and seemed surprised that we actually attacked.

I always thought that the task he had was impossible -- proving a negative. The only way would be to allow inspectors into every aspect of his rule, for a long time, and he would have lost very much of his own power over his country if he did that.

I also thought that Bush had Saddam on the ropes, ready to give us nearly anything we wanted, just before we attacked. If we'd hung on longer, he might have accepted asylum in another country and we could have let Iraq start down the road to self-rule (democracy or something approaching it) without a single American death.

Are we safer with Saddam gone? You'll have to show me, 'cause I don't see it at all.

Bob Clayton