[Superman]

I cannot deny much of what you say here, Craig. And it is possible to get lefties, even passionate ones like myself, to recognize and give credit for at least some of what's happening over there. My point above, for Fint's consideration (yeah, right), is that the article he posted is pure entertainment and will not get you any closer to a rational dialogue with folks like me. In fact, the article above is so cartoon-y, so much of an over-caricaturization, that I kinda feel sorry for folks who would even get entertainment value out of it.

Craig, I'll disagree with your notion that any substantial support for terrorists was coming from Saddam, or that Iraq was a popular place, in the slightest, for terrorists. Yes, they had their extreme religious right-wingers (we have ours, too). But righties are just not listening when they continue to insist that Iraq was useful to terrorists. If terrorists came to Iraq, they'd be visiting the right-wing Muslims that Saddam was so directly at odds with. There was simply no connection. Saddam and fundamental Islam were like oil and water. But since there were no WMD, some folks need to pretend there was a connection with terrorists. Al Queda would view Saddam as being nearly the same as Dubya. Completely detestable. And Saddam would view Al Queda as a rival power, and as a potential drain of his personal resources. There was no love lost. No connection. No cooperation. If there had been, then right-wingers here would have some shred of evidence to show. there isn't any.

But again, the rest of what you say is actually true. There are positive developments there. Dubya ignited a powder keg. The time was right. And perhaps democracy will spread. But that is Reason #3 for the Iraq War. Dubya tossed the dice. A dolt trying to get into the history books.