[CMAC51]

---"While the 3 Democrats were in Baghdad, did they make representations to Saddam Hussein that their fellow Democrats and the Democrats' friends in the mainstream liberal media were willing to commit seditious acts to buttress Hussein's increasingly tenuous hold on his country? Did they advise Hussein that his WMDs should be secreted, in order to facilitate allegations that the Bush administration "lied" about Iraq? Did the Democrats promise Hussein the political head of Bush and the gutting of his administration in exchange for a resumption of Democrat control of the U.S. government through a Watergate-style political coup?"---



This doesn't hold water at all. Although it is pro-Sadaam entities which are carrying out the current attacks, they lack the force necessary to sugjugate the country even if the US pulls out. The Shiites, the majority of the population, and the Kurds, the most militarily organized, would not allow a return to Sunni control. Without the WMD's and Republican Guard, the Sadaam loyalist lack the force to control the country. They can be a problem, but they can't regain control.

[kiryandil]

This doesn't hold water at all. Although it is pro-Sadaam entities which are carrying out the current attacks, they lack the force necessary to sugjugate the country even if the US pulls out. The Shiites, the majority of the population, and the Kurds, the most militarily organized, would not allow a return to Sunni control. Without the WMD's and Republican Guard, the Sadaam loyalist lack the force to control the country. They can be a problem, but they can't regain control.

Saddam probably believed that the U.S. couldn't do his country in a walkover, either, so he's just delusional enough to believe that he'll get his fiefdom back.