Bush asked if anyone thinks we would have been better off with saddam in power. I dont know the answer but am beginning to believe it couldnt be much worse. Mike
Well, its a few thousand Americans dead and almost 20,000 Americans wounded, a few hundred billion $ later, 10s, plausibly over 100,000 Iraq dead and countless wounded later--but of course, some will tell you that Geez, in three years, how many die on American roads, and how many would Saddam have killed in that time?
Bush and Krystol are both still using the "Would we have been better off with Saddam?" line. As though the answer is self evidently "No." And they allow only two choices--Evil Saddam vs. No Saddam. But those aren't the only two choices. Saddam was boxed in. And, while undoubtedly Bush and Krystol supporters will dismiss what I am about to say as "fantasy" (as though they haven't indulged in numerous fantasies over the past 4 years), he could have been swayed and "reasoned" with, IMHO--given choices that would have been hard for him to say No to under the circumstances (though not by such unimaginative and diplomatically stupid people as exist in the Bush administration).
But nevermind, that is all hypothethical. Now these clever people who have messed things up in the mideast so much that there are not only no half decent choices, there are no quarter decent, non humiliating choices, and they have the audacity to blame Democrats and others for "not having a plan," for only being naysayers. But when any plan is presented--and any plan that is explicit will have bad consequences at this point--they of course sneer that the plan has bad consequences. Like, DUH! And Americans are so shocked and awed by our current foreign policy to "Stay the course" that we can't see that that plan has the same or worse horrendous consequences that the alternate plans put forward do.
These Bush people are like geniuses all right. |
