The war in Iraq would not have occurred if George Bush (or some other oil man) wasn't in office in 2002. I feel pretty confident in that stance.

Your argument seems to be that babykilling would go on the decline with Bush elected. My argument is there would have been less death in Iraq with someone else (and I am taking the murderous Husseins into account). Seems like a pretty strong dichotomy to me. If anything, it seems weaker on your end.