There, I said it. And I'll say it again - "We'd be better off with Saddam still in power!"
Why is that so hard for people to hear - much less say? Simple - it requires too much explanation.
The ace up the sleeve of every Tom, Dick and Hannity whenever an argument over Iraq isn't going their way is to pull out the old "Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein?" And it works every time, heck it even stopped Rosie O'Donnell in her tracks.
Of course, no one ever points out that like most wingnut framing, it's a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type of question. Answer no, and you support Saddam, answer yes, and you support their argument. And of course anyone who tries to respond with a real answer is immediately hammered with "Just answer the question, yes or no would we ..." ad nauseam.
Just once I'd love to hear someone reply, "Yes, the world would be better off if we'd left Saddam in power, and here's why."
Now I realize no one ever actually gets the chance to say why, but here are a few reasons anyway.
First up, America's standing in the world community.
Before we removed Saddam:
"We are all Americans"
Jean-Marie Colombani Le Monde, Paris, France, Sept. 12, 2001.
After we removed Saddam:
"It's beyond a question of America's image, it's now to the point where people want action based on their opposition to the US." says Carroll Doherty, editor of the Pew Research Center.
Christian Science Monitor March 2004
Ok, that was an easy one. After all, nation building is hard work, and besides, we're much safer now that we've gotten rid of the terrorists, right?
Before we removed Saddam:
Bush offered some of his most blunt language to date when he was asked if he wanted bin Laden dead. "I want justice," Bush said. "And there's an old poster out West... I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'"
CNN.com September 17, 2001
After we removed Saddam:
An analysis of the Justice Department's own list of terrorism prosecutions by The Washington Post shows that 39 people - not 200 as officials have implied - have been convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security. Most of the others were convicted of relatively minor crimes such as making false statements and violating immigration law - and had nothing to do with terrorism, the analysis shows.
The Washington Post June 12, 2005
So before removing Saddam, we were looking for Osama Bin Laden. Now, after 1700 dead Americans, thousands more injured and tens of thousands of dead Iraqi's and hundred's of billions of dollars we've brought 39 terrorists to justice. And we're looking for Osama Bin Laden.
I'll have to let you decide if it was worth it for 39 terrorists. Maybe it was if those 39 were plotting the next 9/11. But I have a feeling those 39 have been replaced by now.
But wait, we shut down the torture chambers, right?
Before we removed Saddam:
"Notorious human rights abusers, including, among others, Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Zimbabwe, have long sought to shield their abuses from the eyes of the world by staging elaborate deceptions and denying access to international human rights monitors. Until recently, Saddam Hussein used similar means to hide the crimes of his regime."
Statement by the President, United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture June 2003
After we removed Saddam:
The (Senate) resolution, approved 92-0, "condemns in the strongest possible terms the despicable acts at Abu Ghraib prison and joins with the President in expressing apology for the humiliation suffered by the prisoners in Iraq and their families."
Foxnews.com Tuesday, May 11, 2004
"Yes, but Saddam's torture chambers were much worse!" you say? Perhaps, but we lost far more than he did by doing it.
And let's not lose sight of the fact that it was the Iraqi's, not Americans who were suffering at the hand of Saddam. Surely they're behind what we're doing.
A recent poll by Baghdad University found that earlier this year more than 80 percent of Iraqis believed their government would become stronger in coming months. That has dropped to 45 percent today.
With the insurgency killing more civilians, anger against U.S. forces has intensified. Many Iraqis view the United States as an unwanted godfather, who despite his prowess and streams of military convoys, can't give them the basics let alone protect them from extremist elements that badger the nation with Internet screeds and radio rants of jihad.
"I only want to put this question to you," said Sana Abdul-Kareem, a dentist with four children. "Why can't the U.S., with all its might and capabilities, impose security here? How come with all our oil they cannot provide us with electricity? My son was so happy when the American soldiers first came. But after two years of failure to make good on their promises, he abhors them."
The L.A. Times - as reported in the Seattle Times May 30, 2005
So, without getting into WMD (and what right wing talk show host would?) there's the long explanation of why I'd answer "Yes, we would be better off with Saddam still in power," and why I'd like everyone who's asked that question from now on to answer "Yes" as well.
But since I'm a realist, I know no one could ever do that without being shouted down as someone who supports evil instead of freedom. So I offer this alternative response.
"Better off than what, Sean?"
Wouldn't that be beautiful? Think about it. Wouldn't that just make your day to see someone force Hannity or Scarborough to explain themselves?
Of course you'd have to force them to do it, because they'd sidestep your reply by saying something like "How can you support an evil dictator like Saddam Hussein?"
But all you have to do is say "I didn't say that, I asked you how we're better off" every single time they try to pivot.
Then the fun would begin. And maybe, just maybe, we'd make someone think about it in a way they haven't before. Maybe.
So the message to anyone facing this RWCM ace in the hole, remember, you don't have to play the hand they're dealing you. You can play with a full deck.