You know, Frank,
I'm thrilled to death for the Iraqi people. Once Saddam is gone, they will have the chance to engage in tribal warfare and settle old scores they've been itching to settle for years but couldn't because of Saddam's iron rule. The bloodletting won't commence so long as allied forces run the country, of course. Once they're gone... well, that might be a different story.
As far as my rants here:
I just think it would be nice if -- just FOR ONCE -- we heard some straight-up honesty from this administration. Instead of saying we're going in for the sake of the Kurds or because of the ubiquitous "weapons of mass destruction" or because all of a sudden we love the Iraqi people and want them to have our brand of freedom or the ever-popular "we're going in to protect America" ... I wish your boy would just tell the truth...
We're going in, among other reasons, 1) to make the world safer for Israel, 2) because (paraphrasing the Prez) "after all... this is the man that tried to kill my daddy," and, 3) like bin Laden, Saddam was once a close U.S. gov't trained and supplied ally and certain elements of our gov't would just as well rather have him gone.
Would the world be a little better/safer if Saddam wasn't a world leader? If a third of what's been said about him is true, absolutely. He's a tyrant, a monster, but is his regime really that much worse than Sharon's? More repressive than the Saudis'? Or Egypt's? Does it *really* pose a more imminent threat to the security of the U.S./world than N Korea's?
You're right. I don't care for tyrants, whatever their form. I just can't stand it when an 'elected' leader stands in front of me, tells me bold-faced lies, and then expects me to be stupid enough to believe his little act -- all the while posing as some virtuous, better-than-thou savior. Tell me the truth, goddamn it, and show me some respect. And, while your at it Dubya, drop that sanctimonious, holier-than-thou act. You don't wear it very well.