No one said Saddam was "angelic." The question was, "would he do a better job fighting radical muslims than America," and as pertains to Iraq, the answer is "yes."
Bush 1 strengthened him and Bush 2 took him out. The family should make up their minds.
Excepting that he was financially supporting acts of terrorism in at least one other nation, bragged about by him in public, that sort of puts a big pin in your thought bubble.
How can he be considered controlling the terrorists, when he’s contributing to acts of terrorism outside his own borders?