home

Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein Gone?

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 05:50:48 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I've always wondered why people think America is better off with Saddam Hussein out of power in Iraq. I can appreciate (although I don't accept at face value) the argument of those who think it's better for Iraqis that he is gone, but for Americans? I never have gotten the connection.

I was channel surfing very late last night in Aspen and caught Bill Maher on Larry King Live from Friday night. Even though it was way past time for bed, I listened.

KING: Are we better off with Saddam gone?

MAHER: We are not better off. We were never better off because Saddam was actually a bulwark against terrorism. He would never have allowed al Qaeda in Iraq. And I know people say oh, yes, there was al Qaeda. Yes, there was a few al Qaeda in the northern part of the country, which he did not control.

KING: He didn't like bin Laden, right?

MAHER: He hated bin Laden. So the world certainly is not better off without Saddam. And I don't know if even Iraq is better off without Saddam.

You ask the people in Iraq now. Because you know, we're running out of things that Saddam did that we don't do like torture, rape. About the only one left is mass graves. So in a lot of ways we are Saddam except for one thing, he at least had control of his country.

That sounds about right to me. Your thoughts?

< NYT: Republicans to Abandon Immigration Reform | Tuesday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein Gone? | 28 comments (28 topical)
    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 01:36:07 AM EST
    Of course not, as Maher points out. But more than that, what's the point of the question? We'd probably have been better off without Blair. A sensible Prime Minister would have told us to buzz off. Being better off through "regime change" is a logic best left to former centuries...

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#5)
    by roxtar on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 02:40:09 AM EST
    Gee, a secular state with a thriving economy as the linchpin of the Middle East. Why would we want that?

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 06:10:24 AM EST
    Gee, a secular state with a thriving economy as the linchpin of the Middle East. Why would we want that?
    What we want and what we got are 2 different things. But as long as you raise the issue of what we wanted, did/does anybody really think the tactics (there was no strategy) employed to achieve this end- overthrowing Saddam by force of arms and then sit back watch a 1000 flowers bloom- would work? Could work? Isn't it time for those who actually believed the Bushies had a strategy other than overthrowing Saddam by force of arms and then sitting back watching a 1000 flowers bloom, to admit that the Bushies didn't have a strategy, still don't and that this, in the words of Ignatius J. Reilly is going to end badly?

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#9)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 06:11:00 AM EST
    Gee, a secular state with a thriving economy as the linchpin of the Middle East. Why would we want that?
    What we want and what we got are 2 different things. But as long as you raise the issue of what we wanted, did/does anybody really think the tactics (there was no strategy) employed to achieve this end- overthrowing Saddam by force of arms and then sit back watch a 1000 flowers bloom- would work? Could work? Isn't it time for those who actually believed the Bushies had a strategy other than overthrowing Saddam by force of arms and then sitting back watching a 1000 flowers bloom, to admit that the Bushies didn't have a strategy, still don't and that this, in the words of Ignatius J. Reilly is going to end badly?

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 06:45:23 AM EST
    Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the invasion. Zarqawi was in northern Iraq (where President Bush avoided attacking him several times before the invasion). He changed the name of his group to "Al Qaeda in Iraq" during the occupation. Two soccer fields in Fallujah became graveyards in April 2004.

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#11)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:15:13 AM EST
    Saddam was less of a problem for the Iraqis than the US was for them. We propped him up and look what they got. We took him down and look what they got. 300 million arrogant pricks who think they can rule the world.

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:46:41 AM EST
    What????? Read the Kay Report and you will see that David Kay was convinced that Saddam was going full bore to get back into the WMD business. Kay Report And in fact, possessed missiles in excess of the range permitted in the UN sanctions. Plus, there is no doubt that a reasonable person will conclude, based on the Brit's inital reports, reconfirmed in the Butler Report and the words of the Nigerian ex-PM, that Saddam was attempting to purchase yellowcake. And even Joe Wilson reported that to the CIA. This is further bolstered by first the 11/98 indictment of Saddam, later withdrew because it did not meet the proof required of a CJ trial, but did meet the proof of reasonableness, that said:
    In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
    Link And then we have what Fitzgerald told the 9/11 Commission:
    And then we had information from al-Fadl, who we believe was truthful, learning from others that there were also was efforts to try to work with Iraq. That was the basis for what we put in that indictment. Clearly, we put Sudan in the first order at that time as being the partner of al Qaeda. We understood the relationship with Iran but Iraq, we understood, went from a position where they were working against each other to a standing down against each other. And we understood they were going to explore the possibility of working on weapons together. That's my piece of what I know. I don't represent to know everything else, so I can't tell you, well, what we've learned since then. But there was that relationship that went from opposing each other to not opposing each other to possibly working with each other.
    Now, would you really want Iraq to have continued along that track to acquiring WMD's (again) and then selling them to al-Qaeda, or anyother terrorist groups with the money?

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#13)
    by Joe Bob on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 10:39:43 AM EST
    Whenever people talk about what Saddam Hussein might have done I always think of the old adage: "Wish into one hand and sh*t into the other and see which one fills up faster." Sure, Hussein wished that he had some spectacular weaponry. UN inspectors didn't find any before the invasion, Charles Duelfer didn't find any after the invasion. David Kay quit the Iraq Survey Group before its work was done, so he's not the last word on anything. So, we invaded Iraq for reasons like 'exploring the possibility of working on weapons...' We have spent close to 2700 American lives, untold billions of dollars and caused or precipitated the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis in order to forestall a possible development that likely would have never been a threat to the US anyway. We have lived with threats much graver than Saddam ever or could have ever posed. If deterrence and détente worked with the Soviet Union, why couldn't it work with Iraq? I really don't think Saddam was any more irrational than people like Stalin or Khruschev. As far as the proof being in the pudding, right now we are worse off than if we had done nothing and left Iraq undisturbed.

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 12:19:39 PM EST
    Read the Kay Report and you will see that David Kay ...
    ahh, not that old canard! Sheesh, read Kay's final report THERE WERE NO WMDs!, as Blix, et al was trying to tell them before bush kicked them out of iraq so he could have the war he'd already decided on. So, regardless of ppj's strawmen and proven lies about saddam, the question is are we better off with saddam gone ... and the answer is no. And most of Americans realize it, thank god they aren't as willing to swallow bush's lies as readily as ppj, but I must say, ppj does look nice in his blue dress;-)

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    Sailor - Read what I wrote. I didn't claim that Kay said he found WMD's, but that he found proof positive that Saddam had been in the WMD business, was trying to get back into the WMD business, and in fact had missile deliver systems of 1000 KM, far in excess of UN sanctions. Sailor, why does the Left not want terrorists to follow the UN sanctions they have agreed to? Huh? Why is it that? Joe Bob writes:
    If deterrence and détente worked with the Soviet Union, why couldn't it work with Iraq?
    Because the stratefy wasn't deterrence and detente. It was Mutally Assured Destruction - MAD, and we were dealing with a nation station that, if nothing else, could be counted on to respond rationally. If Saddam had nukes, and sold them to other terrorists, how could we have proved that? And how much time would we have had to prevent a second, or third, wave of attacks? And since the terrorists are suicide killers, would they have cared if we nuked them? Many things, Joe Bob. Many things.

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sailor on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 01:14:49 PM EST
    ppj, your failure to understand the differenc e between a prelim report and a final report produced a year later is yet another example of your mental malfunctions. even bush had to start qualifying his lies from 'Has WMDs' to 'Has WMD programs' to 'has WMD program related activities' to ' has intentions of acquiring WMD program related activities.
    and in fact had missile deliver systems of 1000 KM, far in excess of UN sanctions.
    That is not true, and I think you know it ... now what do you call someone who knowingly repeats false information? Maybe he had the desire, but heck, I desire a lot of things I'm never going to have. He didn't have the arms, he didn't have the delivery systems, he and AQ hated each other, (secular v. religious, doesn't work here, didn't work there), and he had nothing to do with 9/11. But you do look nice in that blue dress with the pearl necklace.

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#17)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 01:39:24 PM EST
    Kay was wrong, Ritter was right. Kay admits it. You backed the wrong horse. You should have listened.

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#6)
    by Strick on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 03:07:01 PM EST
    Of course, Saddam would never allow Al Qaeda into Iraq. Zarqawi wasn't in Baghdad when we invaded. Saddam never negotiated over cooperation with Al Qaeda, the translated documents are all forgeries. Saddam never offered to let Bin Laden move to Iraq and Richard Clarke never warned Bin Laden would "boogie off to Baghdad" if he was driven out of Afghanistan, the 9/11 Report is a lie. Enemies who hate each other never deal with each no matter what. Ask Poland about Hitler and Stalin.

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#7)
    by terryhallinan on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 03:07:01 PM EST
    The Butcher of Baghdad, much like Tito, could only hold his country together through terror. Obviously we are not better off trying to prevent the inevitable breakup of the country without the tools Saddam had and no compunction whatever about using them. That vaporous stupidity colors the question badly. The world is always better off without monsters like Saddam in power but the transition to a new regime is often not pretty and the results always uncertain. Best, Terry

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#1)
    by eric on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 03:07:02 PM EST
    Sounds about right to me. Bush couldn't get Osama in Afghanistan so he took out Saddam to flush Al Qaeda out of the underbrush. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and others all say about as much: Al Qaeda is coming to Iraq to fight. This wouldn't have happened unless Saddam was taken out and the country (and its borders) destabilized. This also has the added benefit of taking attention away from the failure to capture Osama.

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#2)
    by jarober on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 03:07:02 PM EST
    Maher forgets two key things: 1) Hussein gave shelter to Zarqawi after he got driven out of Afghanistan 2) Hussein was paying Palestinian families (of suicide bombers) $25k for each attack Yeah, he was a real bulwark against terrorism. If you want an argument in favor of having left him there, try the "regional balance of power vs. Iran" theory. That holds up a lot better.

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#3)
    by merlallen on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 03:07:02 PM EST
    I agree completely. I've always thought that saying we're better off without him was very stupid

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 04:05:51 PM EST
    what do you call someone who knowingly repeats false information? I know! I know! A Republican operative?

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 06:02:43 PM EST
    Sailor - The link you chose is BEFORE the report was published and given the sources are not identified....really great, eh?... may be as accurate as your usual comments. But I will play your game.
    ...the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, concluded that Hussein had the desire but not the means to produce unconventional weapons that could threaten his neighbors or the West.
    Now the above completely fails to connect the "desire" with "means." When an oil rich country such as Iraq has the desire, it certainly will find the means. Then we have the two reporters' very biased comment.
    President Bush has continued to assert in his campaign stump speech that Iraq had posed "a gathering threat."
    Evidently the writers aren't aware of such phrases as "gathering storm," and are too inexperienced to connect the use of the "gathering threat" phrase. You also write:
    you do look nice in that blue dress with the pearl necklace.
    Now Sailor. Now Sailor!! Sailor! Get your hand off my knee! Che - Glad you like Ritter as a source. Let us review.
    ... I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never!... ...I am more aware than any UN official that Iraq has set up covert procurement funds to violate sanctions. This was true in 1997-1998, and I'm sure its true today. Of course Iraq can do this. ....
    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#20)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:52:59 PM EST
    Jim, Ritter said they were still trying to withold information. That's it. You can pick and choose your lines all you want. You were wrong. Ritter said there was no nuke program. Bushco tried like the devil himself to convince us there was, and you bought it. At least Kay is man enough to admit his mistakes. You and Hilary have much in common. Neither will admit that this war is a disaster because you are too conceited to ever admit publicly that you were wrong. Ever. Maybe you can go back to the archives and prove ME wrong. If you can, then maybe you can get a demonstration of humility so you'll recognize it in the future.

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#21)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:58:21 PM EST
    By all means I encourage everyone to read Jim's link. The WHOLE link!

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#22)
    by Sailor on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 07:09:04 AM EST
    1) Hussein gave shelter to Zarqawi after he got driven out of Afghanistan 2) Hussein was paying Palestinian families (of suicide bombers) $25k for each attack
    provide links.

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 08:27:54 AM EST
    Che writes:
    Ritter said they were still trying to withold information
    Ritter said what he said. You can't change a quote. Sailor - Here you go: The Republic Of Iraq The Presidency of The Republic Press Secretary No 4/28 Date: 4/March/2002 To the Respectful Chairman of the Presidential Archives Respectful Order In the meeting on Monday 4/3/2002 with Mr. Farook Al Kaddomi, the foreign minister of the state of Palestine, Mr. President the Leader ordered, God protect him, to dedicate (25,000), twenty five thousand dollars for the family of each one who conducts Martydom operation in Palestine. His Excellency also ordered, God shepherd him, to include the martyrs of the Intifada with what the martyrs of the mother of all battles deserve from a salary and provisions since we have considered them the same. Pleading please review your Excellency. With regards Signature Ali Abdllah Salman The Press Secretary. Link? Try Google. There wasn't but about 200,000 hits... No snarky comments about a dress and pearls? ;-) Sailor! Quit that! Get back on your side of the car seat!

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 08:55:57 AM EST
    ppj, provide links.

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 09:26:49 AM EST
    Sailor - Go polish your pearls. ;-)

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#26)
    by Sailor on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 10:24:06 AM EST
    ppj, can't provide links ehh?

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:12:24 PM EST
    Sailor - Won't. You know they're correct. You're just playing games. Ho-hum. Ta Ta!

    Re: Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein G (none / 0) (#29)
    by chuckj on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 10:40:33 PM EST
    Iraq is better off, we are better off, the world is better off without Saddam. He was an evil dictator no different than Hitler, Stalin, etc. On principle alone he should have been removed, and he was. Lead by example, do the right thing. We did the right thing, don't feel guilt over it. Personally, when I was in Iraq, in Fallujah in November 2004, we found many barrels of sarin liquid and a factory, or sorts, to package it. I've seen the WMDs there, so no report or study is needed for me. I saw it with my own eyes.

    Are We Really Better Off With Saddam Hussein Gone? | 28 comments (28 topical)