|
First of all, there are still going to be huge unemployed in key states (Ohio, WV, NH, even NC) and 45% of the country still can't stand *. Plus, Saddam's capture WILL NOT END the insurgency (though, from a nonpolitical, human standpoint, I HOPE it does... I just don't think it will).
Bush will still tar the opponent as being a wimp. If it's Dean or Clark, or even Kerry (who's been emphasizing recently that we wouldn't be at war if he were president) that if it were for them Saddam would still be in power.
We can easily respond at a debate with this: "Saddam's removal from power and capture was a great thing. In the long term the Iraqi people will be far better off, and a potential threat was removed. But at what cost? Hundreds of American lives, tens of billions of dollars, insurgency, instability, thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, our complete loss of respect from the rest of the world, a bogged-down, overburdened army, and a huge sore on U.S. taxpayers. It's clear that he was not an imminent threat. There were no WMDs. We should have supported a vigorous inspections regime to contain Saddam and learn more about the status of his supposed WMD programs. But Removing Saddam Hussein was NOT worth this kind of cost, especially since he was not an imminent threat to the United States.
"We have no option now but to make the best of it. I was prepared to go to war only as AS A LAST RESORT, and only IF it was proved that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. Furthermore, I would have gone to war unilaterally ONLY IF EVERY EFFORT TO GET UN SUPPORT FAILED. Your actions were inept, reckless, and ideological, and while the war has come to SOME good, capturing Saddam cannot conceal the fact that you have made an extraordinary mess."
|