World A Better Place Without Saddam?

“Anti-war” Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle and John Kerry wrote on Oct. 9, 1998, in a letter to the Clinton White House: "[W]e urge you …to take necessary actions …to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Bill Clinton responded. On December 16, 1998, he unleashed Operation Desert Fox "...to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..."
Previously, on February 17, 1998, Bill Clinton noted: "Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan." Therefore, Clinton said, “(we know Iraq has) an offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum...2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 biological-filled scud warheads, and 157 aerial bombs."

Surprisingly, Senator Tom Daschle, D-S.D., recently praised the Bush administration's war and nation-building work in Iraq and said he has no serious concerns about the lack of weapons of mass destruction.

"I give the effort overall real credit," Daschle said. "It is a good thing Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. It is a good thing we are democratizing the country." Does it sound like the world is a better place without Saddam in power?

“Perhaps so,” huffed the ICO Editor.

With the Taliban gone, Al-Queda on the run, Saddam captured, no terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11, Libya and Iran admitting nuclear arms plotting, North Korea cheating exposed, United Nations Resolutions on Iraq finally enforced, and even senior Democrats applauding – perhaps even the ICO Editor will admit the world is a far better place without Saddam. Because Saddam caused the deaths of three million Moslems, more than any other person ever, even some Moslems admit the world is a better place without him.

Facts, not opinions.

You won't find this in the San Francisco Chronicle, or the New York (All the news that's fit to print) Times.


Establishment Survey (W-2 payroll employment)Total employment as of December 2000 = 131.878 million

Total employment as of August 2004 = 131.475 million

So, the truth is that 403,000 W-2 jobs have been lost since George Bush took office; not the 900,000, 1 million, or even the 2 million that you see, from time to time, in various liberal and partisan-Democratic circles.

On the other hand:Household Survey (W-2 employment, 1099 contractors, self-employment, etc.)Total employment as of December 2000 = 135.836 million

Total employment as of August 2004 = 139.681 million

Hmm. I don't think the Associated Press, the New York Times, MSNBC, or Reuters, want to run the following headline: "Economy generates nearly 4 million net jobs under George W. Bush." So, therefore, it would appear that the establishment survey is the one with which the liberal media will continue to be preoccupied.