Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Saddam is Innocent? Let Him Free?

John Gibson has an interesting post on if the Dems are right, and Saddam has no terrorist connection, and never had WMD, then why not let this innocent man free?,2933,134679,00.html

Let's say they're right — despite the evidence that conclusions have been made for political purposes — but let's say they're right for argument's sake: There were no WMD, no Al Qaeda, no 9/11 link. That means Saddam was innocent and that means the war was wrong
That means Saddam should still be in charge of his country and that regime change was unjustified and in error.

He goes on to explain that since Saddam is in our custody, why not let him loose and permit to build up his regime again.

Predictably, no Dems are going to argue for his release, even though their own arguments force one to conclude that the war is "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time."


At 11:02 AM, Blogger DCDuck said...

Interesting point. Im not sure that I completely agree, except that it appears to be a problem more with being articulate. Wrong place, wrong time sounds pretty, but what they should have said was right place, wrong time.

At 2:26 PM, Blogger kevin said...

I agree. . .the right time should have been 5-12 years ago during the Clinton administration. He should have stepped up to the plate. The dems are just upset that they didn't get the hurrahs by attacking then.

At 2:46 PM, Blogger J-Red said...

The real unfortunate thing is that the complete politicization of the issue has obscured what should really be going on. Instead of blaming Bush for acting on the intelligence (apparently unrealible at that), we should be focusing on the state of our intelligence. I think the real questions should be posed at the failures of the global intelligence community. I don't fault Bush for acting on the intel, I fault the agency for providing faulty intel.


Post a Comment

<< Home