No, he's right... Saddam's done terrible, awful things, but so have many of the other leaders in his region.
So, what that means is that he just shouldn't be the only one to go down... Adios Khantamenei, adios Qadafi, adios Abdullah...
This is the old liberal argument ("everyone else does it, too"). This is the way liberals justify wrong, wherever they find it.
The problem is, these other people aren't quite on Saddam's level. The war is on terrorists. But the sequencing of the war obviously is influenced by factors other than who is the biggest, baddest terrorist of them all.
The week after 9/11, when it was decided Saddam had to go, Bush sternly informed his cabinet that we would not deal with Saddam until we had done what we could against Al Qaeda. And that is precisely what he did.
There is little question the execution of the war will continue once Saddam has been put out of his misery.
P.S.: Don't put Ted on ignore... how could this thread be any fun?
Hey, it is part of my anger management. He starts making such absurd statements I have to ignore him for a while, so I can settle down. Then, I see something stupid he says to someone else and I have to take him off ignore so I can tell him how stupid he is. It is a real case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". |
