Not sure how this is even controversial at this point.

But for the United States having Saddam alive is probably better

I know it was a real long time ago, and your brain doesn't work so good, but it was George W. Bush and his administration that was so hell-bent on removing Saddam Hussein. I believe Bush's exact words were "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out."

As long as you're strolling down memory lane, Ted, you might also remember what the Bush administration and its media supporters called people who didn't think invading Iraq was such a good idea. "Traitors" was one of the nicer ones. I don't remember seeing you at any of the demonstrations back in the day, Ted. Where were you?

but doesn't have the courage to lay blame where it belongs.
Don't Cruz and the Bushes have long-standing animosities?

somehow manages to find a nut to eat once in a great while.

The Cole was attacked in Yemen.

Was the Middle East safer with Hussien? There was still plenty of instability, still plenty of eruptions of violence, and still opportunities for Americans to suffer.

He was a secular leader and didn't have anything to do with the Cole.

He did, however, want to sell his oil for euros, rather than dollars.

Kind of like Gaddafi, who wanted to sell his oil for gold dinars, rather than dollars.

Forced to agree with cruz on this and agree with dick about Trump's idea being absolutely un-American. I've never felt this dirty my whole life.

I need another shower today......

He's right for the first time in his life.

was right once a day ?

At least the glasses make him look smart.

That old liberal mantra that in the long run repressive governments create the conditions in which terrorism thrives is not 'realpolitik'? Right, Ted?

We need dictators to control the terrorism that repression of previous dictators caused? Using that 'logic' repressive dictators will be around forever saving us from 'terrorism'. ("It's me or the terrorists!) Sometimes it is hard to follow right wing logic.

him because evil and dictator. So, maybe it's all just a question of which (R) one sides with?

Most conservative politicians are quite comfortable dealing with and supporting dictators, as Reagan did with Hussein. Bush I did the same with Hussein up until he invaded Kuwait. Even the resulting Gulf War saw Bush deciding to leave Hussein in power though he could have been easily deposed.

That's common knowledge. And one of the biggest reasons the Iraq War and the lies used to start still needs to be an issue thrown in the face of anyone pushing for a repeat.
Insert obligatory broken clock comment here...

We've messed things up pretty good over there.

"GW bush and his fucking cronies". Leaving himself open to blame Obama for it.

at least since 1952.

"we’ve seen Democrats and a lot of establishment Republicans in Washington get involved in toppling Middle Eastern governments."

Yep, it's all Democrats and a handful of a specific type of Republicans who are responsible. Those hardcore conservatives whom Cruz purports to represent -- had no hand in any of it.

Welcome to DU!

I'm certain Hussein made the trains run on time.

how did the Shah of Iran become the de facto head of that country?

The mistake Mr. Trump is making is to think ahistorically, that is, to think as though societies do not change dramatically over time. The Neoconservatives thought they could install a king over Iraq in 2003. But Iraqi society had overthrown the kings in 1958, and there is no going back. History may not be dialectical in exactly the Hegelian sense, but any historical situation does produce other, different situations over time. Moreover, societies can change dramatically. History is not static. It is not like a slab of marble. Historical developments produce new and different historical situations over time, and new generations react to the previous ones by striking out in different direction, even at great risk.

How anyone in his right mind could think that Bashar al-Assad (r. 2000- present) brought stability to Syria just baffles me. He provoked the 2011 uprisings and he caused the civil war by deploying his military against the peaceful demonstrators. That’s stability? It is mostly his fault that over 200,000 Syrians are dead and 11 million out of 22 million are homeless. If you are president and your country is in this condition, you don’t get to say you brought stability. Nor is the problem outsiders. In 2011 there was almost no outside interference in Syria. Bashar drove the opposition to pick up arms. The largely rural and illiterate Syria of 1970 when Bashar’s father came to power is long gone. You can’t keep them on the farm once they have seen gay Paree.

Libya under Gaddafi was not stable by 2011, and it was not the United Nations no-fly zone that made it unstable. It was unstable because Gaddafi’s secret police state had lost its authority for a majority of the population, which rose up against it. That is clear instability, and it was provoked by Gaddafi’s erratic and sclerotic dictatorship and by massive repression. I wandered the halls of the courthouse in Benghazi in May of 2011 and the walls were full of pitiful old black and white pictures of young men, including soldiers, whom Gaddafi had made to disappear, asking plaintively if anyone knew their fate (we know their fate).

Does Mr. Trump believe that Europe was more stable when Erich Honecker ruled significant swathes of Germany with an iron fist? Or when Tito headed Yugoslavia? Inflexible dictatorships that cannot adapt to social change and the rise of new generations cause instability, Mr. Trump. They don’t forestall it. Or, they don’t forestall it for more than a generation.

http://www.juancole.com/2015/10/mideast-wouldnt-dictators.html

Change "Trump" to "Cruz" (or any other republican presidential candidate) and Dr. Cole's advice applies equally well.