Clinton and the Republican majority late is his presidency played up the Iraq threat, and I don't think the media, and therefore the American, public bothered to go any deeper.
The fact that Saddam was openly violating the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement in the late 1990s is not something that was played up. Its a fact. These were restrictions designed to CONTAIN Saddam, and they were now being violated.
Also, what Saddam did in the 1980s and early 1990s to the region and the world are facts that don't need any playing up. They are the reason that Saddam had to be contained under extensive sanctions and weapons embargo or be removed from power.
There were the African U.S. Embassies bombed in 1998 and the U.S.S. Cole bombing in 2000. Saddam Hussein was a convenient scapegoat even though he was contained by sanctions and the no-fly zones. I think he simplistically was framed as the mastermind of terrorism that emanated from the Middle East in the minds of the public. I think that explains the polling.
No one in either the Clinton administration, Democrats, Republicans, the media ever accused Saddam Hussein of being involved in the Embassy bombings in 1998 or the USS cole bombing in 2000.
The 1991 Gulf War which the United States public supported had nothing to do with terrorism. It was all about Saddam's threats to the region and the world through his invasions and attacks on neighboring countries, the threat of his forces siezing or sabotoging the majority of the planets energy supply, and his massive use of weapons of mass destruction on the battlefield. These are the issues that people are were thinking about when they voted in the poll in February 1991.
The containtment regime of sanctions and weapons embargo started to fall apart in 1999 as countries that bordered Iraq began to loosen their restrictions on trade and other countries began making deals and flying into Iraq in violation of the sanctions. What was a trickle in 1999 had become a roaring flood by 2002, with Saddam making over 3 Billion dollars in 2002 through illegal oil sales and all sanctions and embargo restrictions gone from the Iraq/Syria border. China was also at the time aiding Iraq's military with communications equipment and improving its air defenses. All in direct violation of UN Security council resolutions.
With the key means of containment disappearing, the only way to deal with Saddam was to remove his regime from power.
The intelligence services knew that it wasn't Hussein, it was Bin Laden (and others). Bush conveniently parlayed 9/11 and the mistrust against Hussein into an unnecessary war against Iraq.
Again, no one ever alleged that Saddam was responsible for the embassy bombings in 1998 or the bombing of the Cole in 2000.
The opinion polls show that Bush already had the majority support he needed long before 9/11 and probably before he ever came into office, to remove Saddam.
At the time in 2002 when Bush made his case against Iraq, Saddam's regime was in violation of 17 UN Security Council resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement that occured because of Saddam's brutal and illegal invasion and annexation of another country, Kuwait. It also involved his launching of Ballistic Missiles against Saudi Arabia and Israel, his other invasions and attacks into Saudi Arabia, and the massive environmental damage done when he ordered his military to set fire to all the oil wells in Kuwait as well as leaking oil into the Persian Gulf from Kuwait City. In addition, there was his massive use of WMD killing thousands of soldiers and innocent civilians on the battlefield and his refusal to verifiably disarm of such WMD.
Saddam's violations, past history and behavior, failure to comply with the demands of the international community, and the crumbling and disappearnce of most of the sanctions and weapons embargo designed to try to contain him, meant that invading Iraq to remove Saddam was an absolute necessity to maintain regional and global security.
No one is arguing that Hussein was a good guy, but if we needed to invade Iraq, what about Sudan? Syria? Others?
Syria and Sudan did not invade or attack any countries during the time period. Saddam invaded and attack four different countries. Syria and Sudan did not use Weapons of Mass destruction against anyone. Saddam used Weapons of Mass destruction on a massive scale not seen since World War I. Syria and Sudan were not under any UN Security Council resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations. Saddam's regime was in violation of 17 such resolutions. Syria and Sudan had not engaged in armed conflict that threaten the world largest oil reserves with siezure and sabotage. Saddam's regime had just engaged in such actions and had annexed the entire country of Kuwait.
To sum up, Saddam's regime's behavior and actions over the past several years before it was removed was unique and extremely threatening to the region and the world. His continued non-compliance and violations plus the crumbling of the main levers of containment, sanctions and the weapons embargo, made removing the regime a necessity.
