It's not a question of him being taken out and if it was a good thing or not. It is a question of where the priorities were and how the case was presented to the international cummunity and the American people. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

Since when are we looking at our failed policy descisions with rose colored glasses and ignoring the facts while only concentrating on the few positives?

At which U.N. meeting did Powell or Rumsfield present the case for the liberation of the Iraqi people ? When did either of them ever pound thier fist on the deck and say "We need to do this for the people of Iraq?"

Deposing a dictator is and was not the focal point of the war nor was it proposed to be. No one can argue that removing Sadaam from power was a good thing and the net result will more than likely be a positive thing for the people of Iraq.

BUT:

Countless arguments and request for international support were made based on the argument that Iraq was a country in posession of WMD's and ties to terrorism and inferences were made as to their association with OBL and Al Queda. That was the sole basis for the IMMEDIATE necessity for the war.

How many Americans would have initially put their tax dollars and the lives of their sons and daughters behind the war if the primary argument was the liberation of suffering Iraqis? No one has given a shit about them for the past 30 years and I doubt any one really does now.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was the marketing plan created to change that focus once the war started. And thus far just to recap: NO WMD and NO PROVEN ties to OBL and Al Queda. So without "Iraqi Freedom" I guess there would be a lot of explaining to do about why we have spent billions of dollars and American lives on a failed mission, wouldn't there be?