How come Democrats get tongue-tied when asked ?

[kentuck]

"Are we better off without Saddam Hussein?"

Yes, the Iraqi people may be better off but there is no proof he was a threat to us. Are those 800 young men and women that have died over there better off? Are their families better off?

"Are we better off than we were 4 years ago?"

Hit back with this question. Do not get caught up in the cloudy diversions that are coming forth. Keep it simple. Ask the question that will get a "No" response or will catch them in a lie. "Are we better off than 4 years ago?"

(changed you to we)

[leftofthedial]

1. Actually, US is demonstrably worse off

without Saddam Hussein.

I personally am FAR worse off than 4 years ago.

[stopthegop]

2. "Are you better off than 4 years ago?"

some individuals are...can be a tricky approach

[kentuck]

5. you are correct...

you, personally, may be better off. But we, collectively, are worse off as a nation.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stopthegop]

10. no...it's reality...

in any time period some peoples' over all situation will improve, except during a 'WWII in Europe' period...and if you ask one of these people if they're better off, you might end up re-inforcing their erronious conclusion that Bush gets credit

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stopthegop]

14. glad you agree...

have a pleasant weekend!

[hippiegranny]

3. why are they soooo much better than we are at

the muddy water technique? is it cause that's all they've got to work with? is that why they absolutely have to have rush, hannity, savage, etc?

[jbane]

23. Is Rush...

Blaming Clinton for Tenant yet...

[morgan2]

4. people need to say

its good that he is gone, but it wasn't worth the cost of 1000s of dead iraqis and almost 1000 dead americans.

[jbane]

22. Same with N. Korea...

A lot of people would be better off with that little freak gone but at what price.
"There is not an American solution to every problem" JFK

[Wickerman]

7. problem - 9-11 changed everything

no way we can go back. /end-freeper-speak.

Asking them "Are we better off than we were 4 years ago?" is a great way to catch them in a lie, granted, but be prepared for the inevitable, "have you forgotten" - 9-11 changed everything. :yawn:

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zero Division]

9. It's a false dichotomy...

that pretends that the only other alternative to "Saddam stays" is "stable democratic Iraq and no significant negative repercussions from the war and occupation".

Yeah, I hate it when Democratic and Liberal spokespersons can't come up with simple answers to traps like this. It makes me wonder if they ever thought the whole issue through in the first place.

[bossfish]

11. I say "I don't know"

We don't know the long term effects yet. The short term effects aren't a bowl of cherries, either.

So far it looks pretty shitty. I know hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, hundreds of troops are dead, thousands are injured.

And since the news from Iraq has been so propagandized, I have no idea if the Iraqis are better off either.

[MikeG]

12. Yes, and we are worse off without the over 800 soldiers who died.

[gold_bug]

15. it's posing a complex situation in very simple terms

Yes of course it's good that Saddam is gone, but that's only one small aspect and consequence of the invasion of Iraq.

But in the Republican world, Saddam gone means the Iraq war is 100% justified so you cannot question and/or criticize anything about the war and the aftermath.

[neebob]

16. Better answer to the Saddam Hussein question

Yes, and imagine how much better off the world would be if Rumsfeld, Bush, and Reagan hadn't helped Saddam seize power and then propped him up for all those years until he got cocky and invaded Kuwait.

[library_max]

17. A recent Tom Friedman column

said that we need to start looking for what we can accept as a minimum positive outcome in Iraq. He said Iraq needed to be stable, not a haven for terrorists, and no threat to its neighbors.

Hell, that's what we had under Saddam! So it's getting to the place where a clone of Saddam would be our best case scenario (within reason) in Iraq.

[kentuck]

18. The correct answer is 'NO"!

:shrug: "We" are not better off with Saddam gone!

[gratuitous]

19. Simply respond

Why yes, and I've been opposing the Saddam regime since 1983 when Donald Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hand and selling him the weaponry he would later use to gas his own people.

I was also against the cynical manipulation by the Reagan administration in selling arms to both Iraq and Iran during their incredibly brutal and destructive war. Because it made our country an accessory to the atrocities that happened there all through the 1980s.

So yes, the world is a nicer place without Saddam Hussein. But did we have to waste all those lives, and spend all that money just to pop one little pimple, who wasn't worth one drop of American blood? I suppose if you finally got a pesky fly with that sledgehammer, you'd be quite happy. But the shambles you made of your house would guarantee that more flies will come in. And so it is with Saddam.

[Egnever]

24. Wow!

"So yes, the world is a nicer place without Saddam Hussein. But did we have to waste all those lives, and spend all that money just to pop one little pimple, who wasn't worth one drop of American blood? I suppose if you finally got a pesky fly with that sledgehammer, you'd be quite happy. But the shambles you made of your house would guarantee that more flies will come in. And so it is with Saddam."


perfect!

[wiggs]

20. Simple. Grab a sturdy 2 x 4 and...

When someone asks if you are better off without Hussein, reach for the nearest blunt object and hit him/her over the head with it. Take his wallet and car keys and then discuss together whether or not you personally are better off than you were 5 minutes ago.

[KoKo]

21. OOP's thought you were talking about E.J. Dionne pushing his book

on C-Span this morning on "WJ" when a rabid Freeper RW calls in and says
"Clinton is a covicted felon, and isn't eligible to VOTE!" and E.J. doesn't "FIGHT BACK" which is the premise of his book...he just says it's interesting that being on C-Span he gets to hear the diversity of opinion out in America..unlike the talk shows which are 'one sided.'"

:shrug: E.J. one of our most read Liberal Voices caves when a "rabid Freep" calls in??? What are our Dems in the "media" coming to?

:shrug: