Sorry gents. Even for an Op-Ed piece, this thing is a crock. Let's start with his opening paragraph:
I am stunned with admiration at the mental agility of the anti-war lobby. Having spent months taunting George W Bush and Tony Blair for their failure to capture Saddam Hussein,
So far, so good ...
and thus accomplish one of the most fundamental aims of the "illegal war" in Iraq,
Says who? The fundamental aims were regime change, finding mass stockpiles of WMDs, finding any WMDs, finding any WMD programs, finding anything looking vaguely scientific, finding sharp sticks, and/or "liberating" Iraqis . . . depending on the day of the week and the latest embarassing false alarm.
Failing to capture Hussein was merely a wonderful thorn in the side of the Bush regime since it demonstrated their ineptitude. Seven months was a more than adequate demonstration.
it was able to recover its composure almost instantaneously when the worst happened.
Worst? More slander by the bitter right. Capturing Hussein has little effect on U.S. homeland security. The effect on our troops in Iraq is still unclear, but I think most people -- left and right -- are hopeful it will demoralize the Iraqi resistance and encourage more Iraqis to come forward, accept our occupation, and help us transition back to local rule.
He follows this with several paragraphs of equally vacuous slurs and unsupported accusations. Finally, he gets to his list of prepared responses. I really enjoy the way he goes out on a limb with these:
If Saddam's trial, by whatever agency, produces previously unknown evidence of crimes against his own people that is so horrific that it shames those who resisted his forcible removal.
No one (certainly not you) ever said they thought Saddam was a hero, or that they wanted him restored to power. They just wanted international law to be permitted to take its own good time to decide how and when he should be stopped.
If the arrest, trial and possible execution of Saddam results in a free and democratic Iraq.
This is irrelevant to the War on Terror. Iraq had no links with al-Qa'eda. Bush and Blair will never defeat terrorism until they catch Osama bin Laden.
Well duh. Both of those statements are true. The only people making claims about Saddam being a hero were the Bush apologists trying to tar the left. I can't speak for everyone opposed to the invasion, but I said from the beginning we needed to let the inspections and containment processes continue. As far as al Qaida is concerned, Bush himself finally acknowledged there were no substantitive ties between Iraq and al Qaida. Forgive us for agreeing with your king (though technically speaking, since we were already there, he agreed with us).
I do take issue with his last comment about bin Laden. Although it appears bin Laden still has a substantial role in al Qaida, capturing him will not cause terrorism to stop. It should reduce terrorism, but some terrorism will continue whether we capture bin Laden or not. Bush's failure to capture bin Laden so far is simply another example of his inept leadership and an affirmation that we should have kept our focus on Afghanistan.
But that's just my opinion.