Saddam was a horrible man. But, it wasn't in our country's best interest to

[Guaranteed]

go in there and oust him.

Yeah, he killed a lot of people. Certainly he DESERVED to be taken out. But was it the right thing to do, given our country's circumstances? Bush argued that he would be an example for the rest of the world. But, of course, his motive really was purely selfish.

Our country really lost its focus invading Iraq. We had REAL problems with Al Qaeda, but they went mostly ignored because of Bush's vendetta. He wasn't thinking clearly. And now look where we are- caught up in something that should have been let go in lieu of addressing our real problems.

Compare and contrast Bush's invasion of Iraq with these calls for Bush's impeachment. Is impeaching Bush REALLY the smartest, best thing we can do for our country? Or are we being selfish, sacrificing what is important?

[mike_c]

1. Iraq was MUCH better off under Saddam Hussein than it is now....

eom

[Guaranteed]

2. Totally agreed.

The invasion didn't help anybody.

[John Gauger]

3. It helped Halliburton.

And ExxonMobil. And BP. And Kim Jong Il is in a much better position than he was in 2002.

[Guaranteed]

4. Well, it didn't help anybody that deserved help. nt

[porphyrian]

5. Saddam didn't hold the highest position in our government.

You still don't get it.

[Guaranteed]

6. What you're saying is short-sighted.

If you took a step back, removed yourself from your anger a bit, you'd see that.

[porphyrian]

12. You've misinterpreted the reality. I'm neither angry nor short-sighted.

What's short-sighted is allowing the Constitution to be ignored for political expediency. What you believe to be anger is simply frustration at those like you who refuse to grasp what I'm saying, which is correct. And, unless you are a two-dimensional thinker, there's no reason we can't pursue our current goals and impeachment in parallel. In fact, I argue that impeachment will be a result of pursuing our current goals, as it won't take long to uncover illegal activity perpetrated by this administration in the course of doing so.

[Guaranteed]

13. Yes, there is a reason: losing the White House in 2008.

THAT'S the reason.

If you want to fix things, that should be your goal. What you're doing will lead to another 8-10 years of Repuke rule.

[porphyrian]

14. You're irrationally connecting things that don't automatically connect.

Look, if you're scared, that's understandable, but that's not how our Congress should act. I've made a solid case that you haven't refuted, and I am apparently unable to change your mind, so why don't we just agree to disagree?

[WinkyDink]

7. I'm still waiting for us to liberate the Chinese.

[John Gauger]

8. It's not just about punishing Bush.

This impeachment is about setting a precedent. We must make sure that justice is served in order to prevent future such abuses of our nation. Every president after Herbert Hoover has been guilty of impeachable crimes, yet none have been punished. This is an important opportunity to prevent acts of aggression by our leadership. This is import in maintaining the rule of law in our nation.

[Guaranteed]

9. Like Saddam? That was one of Bush's arguments.

We just couldn't let him get away with it, because it would encourage others.

And, BTW, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't hold Bush directly, legally accountable after 2008....

[John Gauger]

10. A valid argument -

If one were to advocate lifting the sanctions in an attempt to weaken Saddam's deathgrip on the nation's supply of food and medicine and thus remove his most powerful tool for controlling his people. If our nation can take action to prevent despots from ruling other countries, we should. They problem is that Bush resorted to violence. There is nothing wrong trying to free Iraqis - it just doesn't merit a war. The same is true of Bush. Saddam should have been tried in the Hague for his crimes. If you don't want Congress to use their precious two years on Impeachment, that's fine. The ICC should try Bush anyway - it's our best chance of putting him behind bars. But Bush must be punished. Since 1945, the United States has maintained a reign of terror around the world, the same as its reign of terror in Latin America and against the Natives. This chain of abuses continues unbroken today, and it must be stopped. I should like Congress to impeach the President, but I understand that there are things that badly need to be fixed. If justice can be wrought without taking up Congress's time, I prefer that route.

[Guaranteed]

11. He oughta be thrown in jail, one way or another.

But between 2006-2008 is not the time. Our party and country have way too many things going for us that would be thrown away if we started in on this. It's only 2 more years, and Bush is "marginalized" now in much the same way Saddam was. We can wait until after we get the White House.

[Solon]

15. A key difference is that Bush would be held accountable by Americans...

through a legal process that is already established. Saddam was "held accountable" by external forces, the US, and by extra-legal and illegal means.

[Random_Australian]

16. Quick point of fact: "Bush argued that he would be an example for the rest of the world"

I seem to remember a helluva lot about Weapons of Mass Destruction, personally.

:)

[Guaranteed]

17. Yes, one argument was that Saddam would be an example in that regard,

among others.