Not so much anymore, since he stopped hanging around.....

Now, I think we should look at our hole card in the Big Desert Paradise Democracy that we have created in Iraq.

We need someone to buckle down and run the place. Saddam is tanned, rested and ready!

I think this is or was, more of a love to hate him topic. Why else would he and several others on this list be included in so many categories all over RIA?

I don't know that the topic is hated but the man is pretty hated world wide.

Quite worthy of contempt,but so are lots of "World Leaders".

He is a hateful man who had the nerve to invade another country for no good reason. One of the few things George Bush has gotten right over the years is to capture this dude and get him off the streets of Iraq.

Sadistic tyrant who will be forgotten in 10, or less, years. One of the ONLY things King George will be applauded for years down the road.

He was evil, but not worth the war, and if he was then, by whatever processes one would reach that conclusion with, their were other more deserving candidates. Mr. Political, in light of the Deuffler(?) Report I would reconsider your staement that he had WMDs and would have tried to intimidate us. Our intelligence has shown the exact opposite- he didn't have them, the sanctions and inspections had worked, and he wasn't even concerned with us, but was more concerned with Iran. The report even says that he wanted to strengthen is relationship with us, noy cause us harm!!! So this administration has invaded a harmless country that was actually quite fond of us for no apparent reason. Four more years? The remaining four more weeks are enough for me. UPDATE: Actually Mr. Political I dare say that you are taking the contents of the report out of context. After the release of the report Bush said that it proved Sadamm had the intent to pursue WMDs. That must be where you got planned to develop them in the future and it was reported everywhere. The report neither said that he had intent nor that he was planning, they both communicate an activity level that is not consistent with reality. Meaning that they both transmit an idea that if we hadn't invaded when we did, Sadam would have WMDs. In fact the report states that high level talks about WMD production ended about ten years ago. Many people in Iraqi government believed that the WMD programs could have resumed when the sanctions were lifted, that Sadam still had some interest in the idea. Is that planning? No, he was not actually pursuing WMDs in any way, nor were there even talks about it that included him. For example: a 16 year old is looking into joining the Navy after highschool, talks about it for a little bit with his friends, and then doesn't talk about it anymore. Ten years later it would be a mischaracterization to say that he is planning or that he intends to join the Navy, unless we are to assume that an intent, once had, is a permanent fixture. It would be correct to say that he thought about it once, but hasn't made any moves towards doing it and hasn't spoken about it in a while. It may seem like I'm parsing here, but there is a much different effect when one describes Sadamm as planning then what the actual reality was.

Mr. Political, you don't feel it's time to back down off this one yet?

Sure you'll get plenty of unhelpfuls for rating this guy great! But for good reason. This man had the capablity ,and our intelligence information proved it, that Hussien had WMD's. He could of and would of tried to intimidate the U.S as a result of this. So scarletfeather, yes, that was worth starting a war over. UPDATE to gmanod: You've taken out of context what the Deuffler (?) Report said. While yes, it did say Hussien didn't have WMDs, it ALSO said that he planned on developing them in the future. I bet CNN and The New York Times didn't mention that part, right?

Yeah, he's bad, but was he worth starting a war over?