Blind Acceptance or a Method to Madness?

After reading a disturbing article in my local news paper authored by Gwynne Dyer a London based Journalist I am at odds with a question of fundamentals. With the supposition that Saddam has never shared his Weapons, is hated by Al-Qaida, and if his chief goal is survival why are members of the US administration trying to link him with the terrorist group, and remove him from power? There is some rhetorical themes with this, but the author of the article seems to be trying to make a case against invading Iraq…
All of the horror stories floating around about Saddam’s brutal torchure of his own people, his death regime and plot to launch a nuke on down town Tel Aviv. If they have any validity why are other nations not backing the US let coalition to tople this tyrant.
And I guess I do not understand why one would make a case for such an evil man, if he truly is the tyrant everyone says he is…
And why would the supposed Bin Laden tape say Al Quaida is with Iraq, when for years, Iraq has been against what Bin Laden stands for with his fundamentalist Muslim cronies?

I suppose my first answer would be that different governments have different priorities and beliefs and philosophies. I don’t pretend to understand the French or German position, although their sems to be some deep-seated distrust of the United States present at some level in the mix. Certainly, both countries have had a love-hate relationship with the USA last century.

It’s Operation Repair Poppy’s Legacy