Most people no doubt know that U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein today. I'm glad that they finally caught him, and I’m looking forward to the day that he will be made to pay for what he has done to the Iraqi people during his reign.

I am, however, a little confused by the pundits who say that the capture somehow exonerates president bush. Sure, a lot of people had wagged their fingers and admonished the Administration because Saddam was still at large, but in my mind that was never the issue.

While I have no love for Saddam Hussein and I believe that the Iraqi people are so much better without out that the implications for their future is astounding, I still don't believe that president bush's motives were as pure or as noble as he makes out. There has been no proven link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and we've found no "weapons of mass destruction." Both were listed as our initial reasons for invading Iraq. The liberation of the Iraqi people was only added after the other reasons didn't work out.

In short, I didn't buy the bullshit then, and I don't buy bush's bullshit now. The media channels are saying that Saddam's capture has hurt the democrats and helped bush's reelection campaign. I don't see how. I don't see how it's a win for bush, because whether or not Saddam was at large has never had any bearing on how bush has done his job. I think president bush might get a rider for a couple of days, but in the end there will be a lot of people like me who think bush is full of shit and that Americans would be better off without him.

So this may hurt the democrats for a few days, but in the end a lot of Americans are yearning for liberation. Republicans should remember that the majority of Americans voted for al gore in 2000, and that bush was essentially given the presidency of the United States by Scalia and the Supreme Court. In 2004 a lot of people will remember that when they vote in the next election, and it won't make a damn whether or not bush gets credit for the capture of Saddam Hussein.