[marron]

Bush has been clear from the beginning. He was going to take Saddam down.

Bush's supporters expect this of him. We don't want to simply react after the fact as our enemies take their shots and then disappear into the crowd. We expect to take the fight to our enemies. If they are coming for us tomorrow, we are going to meet them today, now, on our terms and at a place of our choosing.

But Saddam could have confounded us at any time. He could have simply surrendered. He could have simply opened his bases to a delegation of US military, he could have established a joint US/Iraq military commission to arrange the disposal of his weapons. He could have simply handed them over. Then there would be no invasion. There would be no occupation. Saddam would remain in power. The sanctions would be dropped.

But that isn't what happened. He did not disarm. Our supposed allies are selling him what he needs to break out of containment, which means that containment is doomed to fail.

So rather than wait passively while he confounds us with the help of countries who were once our allies, but who are now his allies, we will act. We will not withdraw and leave him to continue his rampage, we will confront him and finish him. And then we will move on to the next item of our "things to do" list.

This is what we expect of Bush, or any other so-called leader, and if we are supportive of him it is because he is doing what we expect him to do.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

I may have figured out something......I think the left's love affair w Saddam Hussein may be based on the striking resemblance between Saddam and the ultimate hero of the left, Joseph Stalin

If you ever see photos of both of them...they look almost alike. Note that Stalin is ethnically a Georgian (the nation, not the US state).....Georgian's (they are Christians) more resemble Middle Easterners in appearance than Euros

Maybe Saddam is the second coming of Stalin, in the leftist's eyes

RWK