Every person arguing that we should never have attacked Iraq must first stipulate the premise "the world would be a better and safer place today if Saddam and his sons were running Iraq."

That point can actually be reasonably debated, depending on assumptions made on the effect on other nations and entities, but one has to recognize that the coin has two sides.

We did not find an active WMD program in Iraq when we invaded, but Saddam had a proven history of building and deploying such weapons. He had a nuclear bomb program that Israel (to near-universal condemnation) took out in 1981. He rebuilt that program in secret until the U.N.--after Iraq was opened up by the first Gulf War--finally discovered and dismantled it. When we invaded, there was no active nuclear program at all, but the materials, documentation and manpower were waiting.

I find it very hard to believe that Saddam would be sitting with his hands folded right now as Iran feverishly enriched uranium.

A lot of things would be different if we had not invaded Iraq. But the idea that somehow the world would be a more stable and peaceful place right now doesn't stand up to much examination.