Saddam was not likely to aid anti-US terrorists like Al Qaeda, and to the extent he would have, there's a serious question as to whether it would have been any worse than what Saudi Arabia has done in that respect.

That is not the information I have from several sources. If it could be done clandestinely then almost certainly he would. Even if not he certaiy would have created a situation for Israel beyond their capability to deal with with his emphasis on paying off Palestinian gut splat brigades among many other groups.

It is almost certainly true that Iran and Saudia Arabia in their own ways contribute no small part of this issue of funding to terrorists of all stripes, including Al Quaida and more likely just play both sides against the middle. But that is not an argument--that is a political and calander/scheduling issue and observation about what we as a power need to do to get ourselves extricated from the region. This would help. But that is the contradictory nature of all politicians and does beg the question why fight in Iraq but can't stanch the bleeding on the aid the nuts in Iraq AND Afghanistan get from Iran, etc.

Agreed. But by this logic just because idiot pols can't get to Iran and Saudi Arabia and press the issue of IEDs blowing up in Afghanistan as well, we should therefore not even be in Afghanistan EITHER?

You see the problem here, Dilan? That kind of argumentation cuts both ways. Iraq is not the only conflict that is problematic and where the loons are getting outside assistance. I don't know a way to light a fire under the politicians on this one. But that's not in and of itself an argument for doing absolutely nothing in Iraq any more than Afghanistan vs. the Talibs.