remember 1989-90?

[A18]

Yeah, it did suck.

[A18]

The danger is nuclear terrorism. The Soviets were at least sane and wanted to actually live.

[A18]

He may. Doesn't mean the guy he hands a nuke off to does.

Consider Hussein. Had the assassination plot against President Bush been successful, he would have been a goner, but he ordered it anyway.

[A18]

Proof?

I dimly remember hearing of an attempt, or a plot, or whatever it was, on George Bush when he was visiting Kuwait in 1992 (I guess). I don't remember the details, I was only 13 at the time. I haven't heard anything about it since. I've tried googling it, but haven't found anything. It's not mentioned in Bush's Wikipedia biography. It's not on a list of serious assassination attempts against US presidents on Wikipedia (there're 13 entries, not counting the successful attempts). It wasn't mentioned in the buildup to the war by anti-Saddamies. Even though it would make a good argument for how dangerous this guy is.
Which brings me to part 2: Where's the difference, in the "goner" stakes, between a successful and a failed attempt at the life of a US President? (Note that the letters US are important here. Nobody supported a Libyan invasion of the US after Reagan ordered several assassination attempts of Ghaddafi, one of which killed Ghaddafi's 4 year old daughter. Just an aside observation, and not really my point.)

Several Democratic congressmen, as well as internet trolls (the latter having more credibility), said it was the reason Bush went to war.

[A18]

Both the oil theory and the revenge theory are incredibly dumb. But that's irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is that it's been widely reported that Hussein tried to kill President Bush after Gulf War I.

[A18]

Well, what leads you to think it isn't? Problem with a Google search is that it'll probably bring up this Bush's recent 'attack.'