Four More Wars?
With his justification for the war disputed, and not being able to blame going to war on John Kerry, Bush is left scrambling for reasons to justify his Iraq policy. Today he is left with claims that the war was justified because Saddam was a brutal dictator. Bush is attacking Kerry for being unwilling to have removed this brutal dictator--contradicting his own claims that Kerry supported him on the war.
It is a hypothetical question as to whether Saddam would still be in power. Kerry warned about Saddam in the past, but would have used methods to contain Saddam without invading if at all possible. If necessary to invade, he would not have done so in the reckless manner as George Bush did. He certainly would not have allowed Saddam to distract him from the greater threat from al Qaeda.
When George Bush makes his claims that under John Kerry Saddam would still be in power, I note this may be true (assuming he could be contained) but instead Bin Laden would not be. The choices Bush made tell a lot about his true dedication to the war on terror.
With the debates coming up, I have one further question for George Bush, and he may even use a life line to answer:
President Bush, if invading Iraq was justified solely because Iraq under Saddam was a brutal dictatorship, how many more dictatorships do you plan to attack during your second term?
We do not dispute that Saddam deserved to be removed from power. This alone does not justify unilateral military action.
Does Four More Years really mean Four More Wars?