I will concede that I worded it badly. It would be more accurate to say that if Rall and his kind were in charge, their policies would have the inevitable result of Saddam remaining in power. But I don't expect him to be able to track a logical train that far to arrive at that conclusion, or even foresee the results.

But it has nothing to do with "love."

The choice we were presented with was to remove Saddam, or leave him in power. Loving or hating him is totally irrelevant. The Left insisted there was a third side to the coin, a way to leave him in power, yet render him harmless. To the best of my knowledge, none of them came up with a specific answer to accomplish this, although there was some mumbling about more "inspections." After the fact, some now insist he was always harmless (except to his own people and the surrounding region, but who cares about them).

It's inaccurate to say that the anti-war crowd loved Saddam. They hated Bush, but that's something else. To the best of my knowledge, not one leftist organization, even the Stalinist ones, stood up in public and said Saddam was a great leader and deserved to run Iraq. Still...

I do know for a fact that through the months of protests, with millions of people around the world, and hundreds of thousands of banners and signs berating Bush and Blair, I did not see one, single, small sign calling on Saddam to do anything at all for the cause of peace--cooperate with inspectors, resign his office, free political prisoners--anything. It's difficult not to draw certain conclusions from this.