Of course, no one is saying that you can't be opposed to bush and saddam at the same time, or for that matter, that you can't be opposed to bush and "al qaeda" at the same time either.
but it becomes a different story when you start considering the history and facts as to who helped people like saddam and the taliban and the shah and countless others into power, and that this "helping" was part and parcel of a certain geopolitical-economic ideology carried out by one certain country with no regard for the innocent lives that will be left in the wake of its actions, either abroad or domestically.
right after 9/11 happened and as it became more apparent that there was going to be a "war," if that is what you can call it, i felt that the U.S. ruling elite had a tremendous part of the responsibility-- not because of some Mike Ruppertesque conspiracy, but because the foreign policy of the U.S. government directly and blatantly puts the lives of its own citizens at risk.
any decent person, including many if not most on the left, is opposed to saddam hussein because of the manner in which he runs his country (while keeping in mind that most of the items on his "list of atrocities" trotted out by the corporate media about 15 times a day should say "with U.S. support" next to them). but that doesnt mean we also support the idea that the U.S. has the right to designate whichever leader in the world it wants as "evil" and therefore gain the right to intervene, violate sovereignty, and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. who is the U.S. to say such and such leader must go? nowhere in the world is a regime change needed more than in DC.
--- Marc Rodrigues Voicemail: 866.206.9067 x4217 Students for a Free Society: http://qcsfs.tripod.com
"Why should there be one standard for one country, especially because it is black, and another one for another country, Israel, that is white?.. the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace." -Nelson Mandela