Bring Back Saddam

No reputable person can argue that Iraq was better under Saddam. This idiot thinks so, however:

After U.S. authorities handed over power to an interim Iraqi government, President Bush boasted that the American effort has left the people of Iraq with better lives than they had under Saddam Hussein.

"This is a day of great hope for Iraqis," he announced. "Today, Iraqis live under a government that strives for justice, upholds the rule of law and defends the dignity of every citizen."

This is the last excuse for a war that didn't have to be. We didn't find weapons of mass destruction. We didn't uncover evidence that Saddam Hussein had worked with al-Qaeda to foment terrorism against us. We didn't eliminate an imminent threat. But look! Iraqis are better off!

No doubt the Iraqis have gained something - though far less than they or the administration expected. Nor is it clear that the new regime will live up to Bush's lavishly optimistic description. But in any event, conservatives who think the government should stick to its enumerated powers will search the Constitution in vain for language authorizing the President to wage war for the benefit of people in Mesopotamia.

So we should re-instate a dictatorial, genocidal murderer?

...But what else can he say? Every other pretext for the invasion has disintegrated like a sand castle in a thunderstorm. So he and his aides fall back on insisting that the Iraqi public and everyone else are better off with Saddam Hussein in jail instead of in power.

Even that isn't true. The nearly 900 American soldiers killed and 4,700 wounded since the beginning of the war are worse off. The U.S. taxpayers who will have to foot the bill for the invasion and occupation have gotten poorer. The soldiers sent to Iraq are not all writing thank-you notes to the President. The uncounted Iraqis killed or wounded during the occupation might have preferred the status quo.

Saying it's good to be rid of Saddam Hussein is like saying it's good for me to get a big, new house. If I have to arrange financing through Tony Soprano, it may not be so good. The question in Iraq that Bush stubbornly avoids is: Was the achievement worth the cost?

That's easy; Yes. The analogy of buying a house with Tony Soprano as creditor is weak but let's run with it. let's suppose you didn't even agree to the loan and Tony is insisting, under penalty of death, that you accept the loan under his terms. You have several choices; you can accept the deal and pay and pay and pay while pretending that it's a good deal, or you can say no and meet the challenge head-on. You know resist the evil. If he sends his henchmen after you, you fight them and even go into his neighborhood to show that you have guts and won't take it.

That's what this war was about, Islamofascists attacked our country and we were left with two options, (I know whittling it down to two is not "nuanced" like Liberals tend to think but so what, I'm a stupid Bush-backer) those options were to either sit back and take it, not react, look at what the root causes are for Muslim hatred of us. This is the approach the French and Spanish have decided on. The other option is we could continue a war that had been going on for twelve years in their neighborhood, kinda like going to Tony Soprano's front door, kicking it in, and throwing his ass in jail. Given the options, the latter is the correct one.

In the months before we attacked, the administration promised the achievement would be huge and the expense minimal. Besides reaping the adulation of the Iraqi people, we would cow rogue dictators, curb terrorism, promote democracy in the Middle East, and pave the way for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Instead, North Korea and Iran are pushing forward with nuclear weapons programs. Terrorists are more numerous than sand fleas in Iraq, not to mention Saudi Arabia. Instead of offering a human-rights model to Arab nations, we've given them pictures of naked men being tortured by Americans. The Israeli-Palestinian lovefest has yet to commence.

Find one case of anyone in the Bush administration saying the achievement would be huge and the expense minimal. I don't recall anything being said concerning attacking Iraq and the Israeli/Palestinian issue getting any better either, (although by ousting Saddam, we did cut off the major suicide-murderer funding source) claiming that the administration said this is just perpetuating a myth.