If Bush hadn't overthrown Saddam, given that:
1) the previous administration adopted Iraqi regime change as US policy and told the world that Saddam and Al Qaida had agreed to cooperate on WMD development (see 1998 federal indictment of Osama bin Ladin and Richard Clarke's explanation for the Khartoum cruise missile strike)
2) everyone believed Saddam possessed WMD's (all the countries in the region, the Europeans, the UN, etc.)
3) Gore had promised Chalabi's INC to overthrow Saddam if elected
4) Iraq had been on the State Dept list of terror sponsoring nations for over two decades
5) Vladimir Putin told the world that Russia's intelligence service, which had worked closely with Iraq's for decades, warned the US that Iraq was planning to launch terror attacks against the US
6) Iraq sheltered an indicted defendent in the first attempt to bring down the WTC in 1993, Rahman Abdul Yasin - who made the explosive used in the bombing
7) Iraqi diplomats had been caught assisting terrorists in attacks on American targets, being expelled twice from the Philippines in the 1990's for that.
Given all the above, I have no doubt that if Bush had left Saddam in power, most of the people now attacking Bush for going to war without Iraq would now be attacking Bush for endangering the country by leaving this dangerous regime in power.
Of course, not you. If Bush hadn't overthrown Saddam, I'm sure you'd be supporting Bush now as a superior choice to the warlike Democrats. |
