If Bush was wrong to invade Iraq, shouldn't we set Saddam free?
Following the defense attorney policies of John Kerry. John Gibson has a point. If the information used to obtain a warrant is found to be false and the search turned up no stockpiles of WMD shouldn't the 'accused' go free?
Let's say they're right — despite the evidence that conclusions have been made for political purposes — but let's say they're right for argument's sake: There were no WMD, no Al Qaeda, no 9/11 link. That means Saddam was innocent and that means the war was wrong
That means Saddam should still be in charge of his country and that regime change was unjustified and in error.
Hey, we can do something about this: Saddam is in our custody. Let's see somebody step forward and say it was all wrong and therefore we should let Saddam free and pop him loose from his jail cell. We should give him back his army. We should give him back his palaces. We should resurrect his two thug murderer sons. We should make things all better again, pre-March 2003. Iraq as it was: The righteous Saddam in charge and all the Iraqis happy.
Now who's going to step up and make that argument?