A better answer to the "wouldn't Saddam still be in power" question

[dolstein]

Personally, I wish Kerry and Edwards would do a better job of answering this question. Here's the answer I would give:

Is it possible that Saddam would still be in power in Iraq? Sure, it's possible. But he wouldn't have been a threat to the United States. We wouldn't have have had over a thousand soliders dead, thousands more wounded, and well over a hundred thousand troops tied down in Iraq. We wouldn't be facing a very real prospect of a civil war in Iraq.

And just imagine how much more progress we would have made in the war on terror if we had taken the 150,000 troops and $200 billion dollars we've devoted to Iraq and instead committed those resources to the fight against Al Quaeda. Maybe instead of having Saddam in jail, we'd have Osama bin Laden in jail.

Look, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. Nobody's suggesting otherwise. And liberating the people of Iraq was certainly a noble goal. But should it have been our top priority following 9/11? Of course not. Our first priority should have been destroying the terrorist organization that attacked us. Unfortunately, this administration had different priorities. They had the wrong priorites. And because of this, the world is a more dangerous place. Saddam may be in jail, but Osasma bin Laden is still at large. Al Quaeda has regrouped and is no doubt planning further attacks on the United States as we speak. We're facing a quagmire in Iraq. North Korea now has nuclear weapons, and Iran is dangerous close to achieving that goal. Our forces are being stretched thin. The national guard can't meet its recruiting goals. And America's standing in the world has never been lower. This isn't the way to fight a war on terror. America needs to change course. We need John Kerry as our commander in chief.

[soothsayer]

1. that's my answer, too! Ok, yours is more eloquent. But it's a great one.

[Dudley_DUright]

2. Excellent

My thoughts exactly. I hope someone in the Kerry campaign is taking notes.

[dolstein]

3. Bump

NT

[creeksneakers2]

4. I keep waiting for them to say that. n/t

[rkc3]

5. I had the same argument on Friday with a co-worker.

I had to remind him that going after Hussein at the expense of letting bin Laden go was not worth the risk.

If you take this argument to other righties I expect their reply would be similar to this idiot's who said there was a connection between Saddam and bin Laden.

Even after running through the litany of reports citing no connection he, like cheney, still believes there was a connection.

[havocmom]

9. Add: 'If taking Saddam out was so crucial that we derailed al Queda fight

to do it, why the hell did Bush I leave him in Baghdad back in
Gulf War I? Must've been some good reason, cuz we know Bushes never make mistakes.

[wtmusic]

6. Eloquent, and well thought out

However, I believe they're afraid to go to far in the direction of saying that our mission in Iraq is just plain wrong. W and others twist this to say we don't support the troops.

This is a strong trigger with a lot of military families. I'm with you though -- better to call a spade a spade and talk about getting the troops home than perpetuate this myth.

[kentuck]

7. Much better resp;onse than I've heard from Kerry campaign...

Maybe they will pick it up? :)

[2Design]

8. yes he would be in power along with 20 other bad dictators and he

is not number one bad person