Lieberman has been widely quoted today as saying “If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison, and the world would be a more dangerous place,”.

Coupla things. Is the world not a more dangerous place when the only remaining “official” superpower has embarked on a policy of “attack first, come up with excuses later” foreign and military policy? Wasn’t Saddam a dangerous man because he had immediate access to WMD? Where are the f&$*ing weapons? I don’t trust Hussein one iota, but it doesn’t seem he’s going to change his tune.

Secondly – just because Dean, along with many others of us, wasn’t for the war, doesn’t mean he would have been content leaving the situation in Iraq as it was. There were alternatives. Besides, the biggest threat to the Iraqi people before the war were the UN sanctions, which were killing up to 5000 Iraqi civilians per month. Then after the war started their biggest threat was getting nailed by stray missiles or cluster bombs. Now they face the threat of depleted uranium shells releasing radiation all over the country side, whilst an occupying force tries to cobble together some form of democratic rule. Doesn’t seem like they’re out of the woods yet.

Thirdly, would the U.S have an $87 billion dollar hole in its purse (enough to provide universal health care the world over almost 4 times, and driving the U.S deficit even more dangerously into the red, threatening to destabilise the world economy, and reducing opportunities for the people of America in the future?

Fourthly, would the U.S be resented in so many countries, both in the Arab world, Europe and Asia, if the war had not been undertaken?

Get you’re head on straight Lieberman – war was not the only option to be taken in this crisis, and the world is not a less dangerous place as a result of this war, thanks very much. If ever there was a chance I would be supportive of this guy in office, it’s been blown completely out of the water. What a dick.