John Kerry said we have "traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure." George W. Bush says that we are safer because Saddam is in prison, and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't have their priorities straight.
This will surely be a question during the first debate. Kerry has already given some good answers on this recently, essentially saying that while it is a good thing to have Saddam locked up, the costs of removing him have far outweighed the benefits.
Preznit Chimpy doesn't understand this response. He can't comprehend anything that involves opportunity costs or unintended consequences. Like his supporters, he thinks that capturing Saddam was worth it no matter how we went about it. Well here's how I think Kerry should spell it out for him:
Let me explain this to you, Mr. President, in a way that we can all understand. Let's take Osama Bin Laden. Would the world be safer if he was dead? Yes, of course. But does that mean you should kill him by launching a nuclear strike on the mountains of Pakistan, leaving of tens of thousands dead, angering our allies and embroiling the United States in an international crisis? Of course not. America is less secure when you make blunders on that scale, no matter how good your intentions.
[turns to moderator]
There's a right way to do things and a wrong way. And when George W. Bush attacked Iraq without allies and without evidence of WMDs, he picked the wrong way.