Kristol argues that the death of 3600 American troops is worth it because Saddam is gone

[BurtWorm]

But wait, wait, wait: What about Iraq? It's Iraq, stupid -- you (and 65 percent of your fellow Americans) say -- that makes Bush an unsuccessful president.

Not necessarily. First of all, we would have to compare the situation in Iraq now, with all its difficulties and all the administration's mistakes, with what it would be if we hadn't gone in. Saddam Hussein would be alive and in power and, I dare say, victorious, with the United States (and the United Nations) by now having backed off sanctions and the no-fly zone. He might well have restarted his nuclear program, and his connections with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups would be intact or revived and even strengthened.

Still, that's speculative, and the losses and costs of the war are real. Bush is a war president, and war presidents are judged by whether they win or lose their war. So to be a successful president, Bush has to win in Iraq.

Bill Kristol: Why Bush Will Be a Winner



Hey, stupid: the situation in Iraq now is that 3600 Americans who wouldn't have been killed there have been killed there. The situation in Iraq now is that half a million Iraqis who wouldn't have been killed there have been killed there. The situation in Iraq is that a country once contained from doing international mischief has the potential to destabilize the entire region and beyond.

Why Bush will be a winner? Who besides you, stupid, cares if Bush wins or loses?