What's the deal with Kerry and the Diane Sawyer interview?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

Hannity kept going on about it the night of the debate. Kerry supposedly said when asked whether the war was worth it, that "it depends on the outcome." First off, I didn't see the interview, so is that what he said? Secondly, if he did say it, what was the context?

[Melodybe]

1. Well, if Kerry is elected and Iraq actually becomes a free democratic

society, then yes those soldiers did not die in vain.

[LTRS]

2. She simply asked Kerry if going into Iraq was worth it

And he said "depends on the outcome." Hannity acts like it's a crime to say that. But I think Kerry is exactly right. To hear Hannity tell it, it's one of those "at any cost" wars and that is foolish considering that they didn't have any of the WMD that Shrub used to sell people on the war.

Hannity undoubtedly pushes this "at any cost" line of thinking because it props up the idea that Bush was right to invade Iraq. It helps further the propaganda that it's as if he had no choice but to invade and not invading was out of the question.

If we gain nothing but another Islamic fundie state, or it turns out to be a Vietnam (and it sure is looking that way), then obviously it will not be worth it. But that is heresy to Hannity. Apparently no price is too much to pay for invading a country we THOUGHT had WMD, but then turned out not to. He's an idiot.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

4. That's what I thought.

It seemed to me (my surmising what he might have meant) that Kerry was basically saying that history will decide whether this was ultimately worth it. He never questioned the nobility of the troops, or their sacrifice. As usual, Hannity misses the point, again.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. Remember Vietnam. Was Vietnam worth it?

Truthfully now, was Vietnam worth the death of over 50,000 young Americans? Remember, we have a little less than 1100 dead in Iraq. If you had the opportunity of stopping a Hamburger War from occuring in Iraq, would you? We have to remember that the Iraqi Independence is the goal and if we work to that purpose, then it's a worthy war. But if the real purposes is securing the pipelines, then a Hamburger War is really what Bush has in store for us. He won't care how many lives he sacrifices. He has already made up his mind that the lives of young Americans fighting in Iraq is worth a secure oil supply and the illusion that the war will forever be kept off our shores. At that point, it becomes an unworthy cause and the number of lives lost will eventually cause a cultural revolution, just like in the 60s.

[progdonkey]

3. It's Hannity...

LTRS is right. To Hannity, one judges before all the evidence is in; something is the right decision because Bush made it, etc. Of course, to anyone with half a brain, one must wait until all the evidence is in to judge a thing a success or failure.

For instance, if the Iraq War does end up creating a stable, liberal democracy that serves as an inroads into the liberalization of the entire region, then I would even concede that the deaths of the soldiers was worth it. (Of course, Hell could freeze over as well.)

On the other hand, if Iraq descends into all-out civil war and serves as a massive black whole of instability that infects the surrounding countries and enlarges the areas where terrorists may operate unabated (something much more likely), only a fool would declare the war a success (ie. "worth it").

[Cat Atomic]

6. Even if Iraq only reverts back to it's previous totalitaritarian

existence, I think most everyone would have to agree that the invasion wasn't worth it.

Iraq will have to end up a pretty damn rosey place to make all these deaths worth it.

[Zen Democrat]

5. Kerry is exactly right. This was an "elective" war. And we know that the

outcome will not be a good one. Therefore, not worth it.