DougR,


Frankly, this whole line of argument is beneath you intellectually.

I don't know and you don't know what would have happened, that was my point. You pretend to know, while I say that I suspect. Then you snidely snipe at me as though I were the one who claimed to know what WOULD have happened. Then, after one uncharacteristically honest sentence where you say that you do not BELIEVE Iraq would have been invaded, you go back to pretending to know, with "there is no doubt that."

There IS doubt, and in any case your argument is based on a guess about hypothetical situations that did not happen. It is not logically derived from any facts, but from your own fantasies.

Finally, even if you are right, and Bush only invaded because Saddam violated UN resolutions, Bush's actions are like getting in an argument, murdering your opponent, and then saying "he was to blame because he argued with me." It's like the rapist who blames the revealing clothes of his victim. There's a grain of truth to it, in that the rape might not have occurred if not for those factors, but the person who kills/rapes/invades is the one primarily to blame for a killing/rape/invasion.

No doubt Saddam's actions contributed to his downfall, DougR. He was partly to blame. However you like to distort our positions, there are few people on the left who do not admit that. But the "real fault" is his, and not to admit that Bush bears ANY of the blame is ludicrous.