An honest question for Kerry supporters.

[stickdog]

How did Hussein's capture make Americans safer?

Do you approve of Kerry lying about this?

Is it OK for Kerry to deceitfully prop up Bush like this if it gives him a chance to score points against Dean?

[sandnsea]

1. Foreign policy

First you have to believe that there are evils in the world besides George W. Bush. And some of these evils are actually worse than George W. Bush. Until you get there, it's kind of hard to grasp that Saddam Hussein actually did play a major role in the instability in the ME and fueling of anti-Americanism and terrorism. Not to say he was connected to al qaeda or 9/11; just terrorism in general. His being captured is a very very good thing. Much like Bush being out of the White House would be a very very good thing. Doesn't mean an illegal war is the way to get it done.

We're safer. Not instantaneously completely safe. But safer. Denying it was stupid.

[stickdog]

2. No. Lying about it to prop up Bush was and is stupid.

How and why are we safer?

Yes, Hussein funded Palestinian suicide bombers. Why was that our problem? Israel has the fourth largest military in the world. They could have kicked Saddam's weak ass with 3/4 of their army tied behind their back.

All successful Iraqi leaders have been brutal strongman because of the way the nation was purposefully carved out. Saddam had nothing and was no danger to anyone anymore. In fact, his regime was a secular bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism.

The only conceivable way we are safer is because the occupation of Iraq give us another place to put the American troops that were pissing off al-Qaeda by being stationed in Saudi Arabia. And this is balanced against the far less stable Iraq we see today combined with the hatred we fomented and are fomenting with our illegal and imperialistic invasion and occupation.

[sandnsea]

3. That's not the whole picture

Palestinian terrorism and that conflict is spilling over at us. al-Qaeda type groups use it, either legitimately or not, to target Americans. Hussein's part in that was real and big.

His part in threatening countries like Kuwait, real and big.

His part in even threatening Islamic countries like Iran, real and big. Progress can be made with Iran because Saddam is gone.

It's a ripple affect all through the region. Nobody is saying that everything is completely safe and that there are no more problems, only that we're safer without his particular presence in the region.

Hating Bush ought not make somebody say stupid things and that's what Howard does. When he has to choose between pandering to his particular group of supporters and stating the obvious as the rest of the world sees it, he has to choose pandering because it's all he's got. It's why he's not fit to be our nominee.

[stickdog]

4. Wow! So the PNAC folks were right all along, huh?

Palestinian terrorism and that conflict is spilling over at us. al-Qaeda type groups use it, either legitimately or not, to target Americans. Hussein's part in that was real and big.

Al Qaeda uses the fact that Hussein was paying off Palestinian suicide bombers to target Americans? How? What's the connection here?

His part in threatening countries like Kuwait, real and big.

That was before he got his ass kicked in the Gulf War.

His part in even threatening Islamic countries like Iran, real and big. Press can be made with Iran because Saddam is gone.

What was he threatening Iran with? His stockpile of WMDs or his buried fighter planes?

Progress can be made with Iran because Saddam is gone.

It's a ripple affect all through the region. Nobody is saying that everything is completely safe and that there are no more problems, only that we're safer without his particular presence in the region.

By any chance, is your real name Wolfowitz?

Exactly how was Hussein threatening us?

Hating Bush ought not make somebody say stupid things and that's what Howard does. When he has to choose between pandering to his particular group of supporters and stating the obvious as the rest of the world sees it, he has to choose pandering because it's all he's got. It's why he's not fit to be our nominee.

Kerry was the one pandering. He's for or against Bush's Iraqi quagmire depending on how the wind's blowing.

[sandnsea]

6. Leaping logic again

The reality of the ME has nothing to do with PNAC and their global domination theories. Two completely different issues.

And Kerry has not changed his position one iota. It's exactly the same as it always was. It was important to confront Saddam. He's dangerous. It was wrong to do it with a unilateral war, especially based on Bush lies. That doesn't negate the fact that it's a good thing Saddam is captured, what the hell was the need to confront Saddam in the first place. Even Howard said Saddam was dangerous and must be confronted. It's only logic that we'd be safer if that sort of dangerous person is captured.

[stickdog]

7. No, it only makes sense that the IRAQIS are safer.

Saddam's capture may have made the world a slightly better place, but saying capturing Saddam makes Americans safer is like saying that catching the Unabomber made Bolivian peasants safers.

[sandnsea]

12. Logic, reason

Can we apply some here? The Unabomber was camped out in Lincoln Montana and had nothing against Bolivians. There is no logic in that statement.

To deny Saddam's desire to harm the U.S. is just sticking your head in the sand. It doesn't mean he had the ability to do it in 2002, but the desire was certainly there. And his connection to the unrest in the region is clear to anybody with eyeballs. It doesn't negate our connection to the problems, Israel's, or anybody elses. But he was a big factor. He fueled alot of the problems. He's gone. We're safer. Not 100% safe. Just safer.

[stickdog]

15. How was Hussein a threat to us?

With his evil thought rays?

[sandnsea]

20. The argument against war

He isn't an imminent threat ready to launch weapons in 45 minutes. That is the argument against war.

Nobody said he wasn't any threat at all. Nobody said he was a meekly grandfatherly old man sitting in the desert. Nobody said he should't be contained. Nobody said we didn't need inspectors back in the country. Nobody said he wouldn't attack the US if he had a chance.

Anti-war arguments are also the arguments that Hussein threatened the U.S. in the BIGGER picture. That's why we had time to deal with those threats responsibly. They weren't imminent, there was plenty of time to do something besides launch a war.

So we're safer that he's gone.

[stickdog]

24. He didn't have WMDs. He didn't have a way to deliver them if he had them.

So how was he a threat to Americans?

[sandnsea]

25. There's more than one way to be a threat

I've laid them out. Ignore it if you want. Doesn't matter to me. Except that's the kind of thinking that's caused Democrats to lose elections for 30 years. It'll be a totally new experience living in a dictatorship. I'm getting prepared. Are you?

[stickdog]

26. No, I'm not.

But I'm not surprised you are.

Don't worry. At least you'll be safer.

[jmaier]

46. I'm looking

for the substantiation of the "lying about it" part. Lying about what exactly? If Kerry believes Saddam's capture increases safety to some extent and then says so -- where is the lie exactly?

BTW, I'm not a Kerry supporter but I think suckering them into a thread with an "honest question" and then calling their candidate a liar is a bit nasty. John Kerry is a GREAT American. Regardless of how you might feel about his candidacy, he has fought the good fight for this country for a long time.

[bread_and_roses]

5. Not really a "supporter"

but of the major candidates I lean toward Kerry because his overall record is more Progressive than the other major candidates.

That said, I was deeply disappointed in his response to SH capture, which I think has little impact on US "safety" in the world. To claim that his capture makes the US any safer in the face of the virulent hatred this war has hardened toward the US in the Arab world is disengenous, at best.

There is perhaps a slim chance that his capture will discourage those of the "insurgents" in Iraq who act out of loyalty to SH, and thus reduce attacks on troops there, which would be a good thing surely. But since there are many indicators that not all the "insurgents" are SH supporters, even that is problematic.

I took his statements as "politics as usual" but I think that "as usual" is in this case a losing proposition: for the public, if SH capture = safer US then Iraq war = a good thing = Bush a good president who makes us safer. The credit will cling to Bush, not the Dem candidate.

Does this make Kerry a less favored candidate to me? I guess I still have to go with his overall, deeply flawed (welfare reform, for instance) but still better than the others (except DK's) record.

It's an imperfect world.

[stickdog]

8. Nice analysis.

Kerry does have a generally good record, and he generally knows his policy.

I just can't stand the way he tries to have it both ways on Iraq, and I hate when ANY Dem gives credence to Bush's lies.

[bread_and_roses]

10. I hate it too

It is particularly disappointing from Kerry, with his record re: Vietnam, Iran-Contra, etc.

[zulchzulu]

41. If you ignore Kerry's explanation, then it is disappointing

This whole IWR "did Kerry say this and say that" garbage can be laid directly to Dean and his intellectual dishonesty about the issue.

For the 10,000th time, Kerry was voting for the UN to do its job inspecting WMDs and to form a multilateral force with the UN to disarm Saddam AS A LAST RESORT. He (and the rest of the World) were lied to by Bush, who kicked out the UN and attacked unilaterally.

Dean, who basically agreed with Kerry's stance, changed his tune for political expediency and then continue LYING about Kerry's record as well as his own when he said "he was always against the war".

Lieberman and Gephardt were more closely aligned to unilateral strikes towards Iraq.

For a guy that was for the first Gulf War (unlike Kerry who voted against it), Dean is the one that wants to have it both ways and smear the other candidates for good measure.

[sandnsea]

9. I disagree

If SH capture = safer; but could have happened without unilateral war based on lies, that'll be a good thing for the Dem candidate. The one who recognizes what needs to be done around the world to make the U.S. safer, but will do it correctly, is the one who will win.

[bread_and_roses]

13. Two problems

One, most people who oppose this war consider it both illegitimate in the face of International Law and consider that there was little to NO evidence that at the time of the invasion Iraq posed any threat at all to the US (I place myself in this group). So Kerry's stance wins no points from them (us).

Two, your analysis requires the voters to parse the issue in a more complex way than, I think, most voters have time or energy for. Most people I hear "on the street" could care less if the war was "unilateral" as long as we "won." Most of the public still support this war.

Tell the world we are safer = the war a good thing = Bush a good president.

[sandnsea]

18. I don't think so

I'm not going to argue the war and Kerry's position again.

But I do think Americans are able to parse the issue quite clearly and understand the truth about Saddam as well as the truth about the lies on the war. There will always be that group who will go to war any time a Republican says so. Just like there will always be that group who will always think America has the worst motives every time. But for the vast majority, it falls in the middle. Where they understand Saddam being gone is good and that it's a truth. But they also understand that we were wrong in handling it the way we did and will not want to see a repeat. They'll vote on that, if they have the chance.

[BurtWorm]

36. I disagree. The Dem candidate needs to represent a clear difference

from Bush on this issue, and others. The candidate who agrees with Bush on this will give him points every time he says, "I agree with the 'president' on this and this" even if the next clause is, "but I would do this and this like so..." But if the candidate says, "We're no safer with Saddam captured," then voters can compare their own feelings with those espoused by the candidates. On this instance, it so happens that Dean expressed exactly how most Americans feel about the capture of Saddam.

Kerry should have worked on a way of phrasing himself so that he didn't sound like a Bush parrot every time he opened his mouth. I mean, he's not a Bush parrot. Why isn't he smart enough to want to make that clear? Why is Dean resonating with so many Democrats? Because he presents himself as the ANSWER to the Bush PROBLEM, the counterpunch incarnate. A lot of us want our guy to hit back and hit back hard. Kerry demonstrated he can hit Dean, if he wants to. He really has to smack Bush--HARD--to get my respect, let alone my vote.

[sandnsea]

45. First, they need to be right

Being different is useless if you're wrong. People know bullshit politicizing from truthful differences. People certainly understand that everything isn't perfectly safe today from Saddam's capture, nobody said it is. Any poll that asks a pointed question about personal security will get that response. But they also understand Dean isn't right that Saddam's capture has absolutely no affect on U.S. security, they know that intuitively. That's why 70% of Americans supported this stupid war.

Kerry hits Bush hard all the time. People just don't see it or pay attention to it when it happens, mostly because they don't want to. Also because they don't get it. Where do you think all those leaks came from this summer? Why do you think those stories have faded? Why do you think Bush's approval ratings have gone back up? When do you think the heat will get turned back up? And when will Bush's approval ratings fall?

Dean's got nothing. He's supposedly the dangerous Democratic frontrunner who can take it to Bush and he has absolutely no impact on Bush whatsoever. What have his words ever done to pressure this Administration to do anything? Haven't you noticed the higher Dean goes in the polls, the higher Bush goes in the polls? Dean's words are meaningless against Bush. The only thing his ranting has accomplished is to split the Democratic Party. Great job.

[Monte Carlo]

11. Well, those aren't really honest questions, but here it goes...

Regardless of Bush and his antics, the world is safer with Saddam captured than not. At the time of the Iraqi war, he was not an immediate threat, but he is no pussycat. Given enough time and an opportunity, he would have made a nuisance of himself again, don't doubt that.

Kerry has not lied about this.

This is more than Bush vs. Dean, you know. It's about push-pull in many different dimensions, and right now, Dean is trying to go the polar opposite direction of Bush, and he WILL lose that battle.

[stickdog]

14. The questions may be biased, but they're definitely honest.

Given enough time and an opportunity, he would have made a nuisance of himself again, don't doubt that.

How would Hussein have possibly threatened Americans?

And why would he have threatened Americans? So he could get his ass kicked again?

[Monte Carlo]

16. Whatever you want to call them, the questions were loaded.

Why would he have threatened Americans? Because that's what kept him in power for years; every so often during the 90's, he defied the great Satan America to look like a big, noble leader to rally his people behind him, for one thing. It wouldn't be HIS ass on the line if America attacked. Don't put anything past a ganster like Hussein. How would he have done it? How the hell should I know?

Dean is trying to prove a negative statment; that Saddam's capture hasn't made America safter. That is VERY hard to do in regular situations, never mind when you're running for President against Bush and his chorus.

[stickdog]

17. The alert level just went up to orange.

But I guess we must be safer no matter what the Bush Administration says about it.

Right?

[Monte Carlo]

21. What does that have to do with anything?

And what does reality have to do with this race? Bush, his Administration, and their friends in the media control a great deal of public _perceptions_, and right now, that perception says that Saddam is was the king of all evil. Dean's popular uprising is swell and everything, but I've seen bigger uprisings fail.

I appreciate Dean's defiance, and in the grand scheme of things, no, the capture of Saddam has not made American's safer. But given a choice between a captured Saddam and a free one, the safer choice is obvious. That is Bush's power - the ability to frame the debate, and I fear that Dean is playing right into his hands.

[stickdog]

23. No. Anything Dems concede to Bush can and will be used against them.

The only way out is to shout the truth 24/7.

Saddam was simply not a threat. If Dean says otherwise, then the question becomes, "Why would you have left him in power?"

[Monte Carlo]

27. The longer Dean screams bloody murder, the more it plays into Bush's hands

The truth, quite frankly, is overrated in a campaign. Mondale told the truth about Reagan in '84 and was beaten by a lanslide.

[stickdog]

28. In this case, Bush has been coddled by both the corporate media and the

Dem opposition.

Somebody has to say the emperor has no clothes, or the Dems will have no chance whatsoever to beat him.

[Monte Carlo]

30. But everything the Democrat says will be filtered by the media...

... obsessed over, over-analyzed, and nitpicked. It's not enough to say what's right, it's how you say it that counts, and right now, I don't believe Dean is saying it in the right way.

[stickdog]

31. Isn't fear-based self-censorship the primary explanation for how Bush

has managed to do so much damage in so little time?

[Monte Carlo]

32. I'm not talking about self-censorship, I'm talking about 'nuance'...

... the dreaded n-word. Kerry, for example, was speaking out against Bush after 9/11 when few else would, as well as Dean, most likely when he was still barely a blip on the radar. That is very prudent. Rougly speaking, we have two large groups of media outlets in this country. One contains Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and their ilk, who are part of Bush's team and will praise anything he does. The second contains mainstream news, which these days will report "Opinions on Earth's Shape Differ" if someone says it's round and someone else insists that it's flat. Dean, I'm concerned, is trying to take too much on at one time: Bush, the establishment Democrats, and the national media.

[stickdog]

33. Well, Dean is the king of blunt, and Kerry is the king of nuance.

Personally, I think my fellow Americans need to be beaten around the head and neck with a blunt instrument until they wake up.

Hence my support for Dean. But I understand your preference as well.

[Monte Carlo]

34. I used to think that with Nader in 2000.

He was possibly more blunt than Dean is now, drew huge crowds to hear him speak, and had grassroots support from around the country. Then he got 3% of the national vote.

[PATRICK]

19. Should have been technical not generalist

In every way. Obviously breaking up the network with the most money and military expertise and weaponry should save American lives in the short run. You could balance that with the rebound of non-Saddam groups and the more suicidal crazed attacks by both desperate Baathists and Islamicist terrorists. In no way should anyone sane have fed the illusion that 50,000 armed insurgents were going to melt down or that anyoine in the long run was going to be safer under the failed and completely inflexible leadership of the Bush misadministration.

In either case saddma was irrlevant except as a morale boost. Instead it reminds me a bit of the movie "Lost patrol". The stolid French sergeant goes by the book and his whole platoon is picked off gradually until he alone remains, feigning death. He jumps up and kills the enemy- both of them. He goes nuts with triumph and revenge until it sinks in. The look on his face is shattering and the relief column finally shows up looking for explanations.

Thousands of dead civilians slaughtered needlessly by us who are there sucking up the oil and repressing democracy. Millions one way or another killed, brutalized by that hapless thug while we aacted the other disgusting way of pragmatic toleration for policy and profit.

It is a moment of disgrace for the whole human race, even the "evildoers" who backed this sham of a man covering over inaequacy with blood and lies. This is the stooge that we coddled then fought with such arrogant clumsiness? The lives of his people under our various policies and under the dictator were rendered equally inconsequential. Disgust, horror, sorrow, once that empty shell was cracked covered over by idiotic triumph? And obviously those who should know better show by their failed speeches that humanity is really none the wiser or better off. I continually find ways to be sickened by the whole sorry show in ways that vindicate Jonathan Swift and the surety we are living in absurdly dark times for the human mind and spirit.

This stupid and hypocritical lie, that committment to having to occupy that oil soaked land for years permeates the madness of the media and the enforced ignorance of the people. We have few leaders who can get their noses above this cesspool.

Nor will the troops stop dying until the occupation ends. And it has absolutely zero bearing on terrorism except as more growth opportunities. You would be safer on the Titanic, but let's stay a while longer and listen to the band.

[bread_and_roses]

29. Yes, yes, and yes

I try to be restrained about this, because once I get started I am likely to say things I regret. I am happy that others have more courage. Those dead Iraqi children...nothing justifies that, nothing. When did we become a country that thinks it is ok to bomb children? It is only with by grittin my teeth that I can try to look beyond the IRW vote, the SH capture statements with Kerry. I try to convince myself that his over-all record demonstrates more moral courage than he has shown in this instance.

[Scott Lee]

43. Reagan bombed children....did the country approve?

Apparently they did, because he was a two term president - the voters didn't seem to care that Reagan ordered a bombing that killed some of Ghaddafi's children.

Please don't pretend that the US military has not participated in, and continues to participate in, some of the most henious crimes against humanity known.

[bread_and_roses]

47. And just where do I pretend

that the US military (and Intellegence services) have not particpated in heinous crimes? I have followed US foreign policy (as best I could) since I took to the streets to protest the Vietnam War. I am well aware of the US propensity for supporting known murdering dictators; a history that should make anyone hearing that we went to war to save the Iraqi people from SH laugh hysterically if it wernt' so grim a matter. My "question" was a rhetorical burst of outrage. I suppose I should have known better - even though that outrage was not directed at any particular candidate, as should be clear.

And what is your point? That because the public has not risen in outrage over the dead children, because those dead children might not be the deciding factor in the election I should just ignore the fact that it was the leadership of my country who perpetrated this? Well, I don't intend to ignore it or forget it.

Does that mean that I find Kerry unacceptable as a candidate? No. As I said before, of the major candidates I think he is likely the best. But thinking he is probably the best of the "viable" lot does not mean I believe everything he says or defend everything he does.

[Scott Lee]

49. I think I misread your post - I apologize.

You were asking since when do we approve of bombing children - I thought that was "Saddam" doing the bombing, when you meant the US doing the bombing via the invasion - yes?

[bread_and_roses]

52. no problem

i was probably incoherent, I get that way when I think about this war. Yes, I was referring to the US bombing of civilians, and the resultant death of children.

[Zolok]

22. My answers are:

How did Hussein's capture make Americans safer?

This is a rhetorical question....but yes capturing Sadam made us all so safe it can't be quantified.

Do you approve of Kerry lying about this?

Yes I approve of all lies told by John Kerry.

Is it OK for Kerry to deceitfully prop up Bush like this if it gives him a chance to score points against Dean?
Yes it is okay for John Kerry to deceitfully prop up Bush as it does give him a chance to close the gap with Howard Dean.

:)

[kaybea]

35. I support Kerry as among my top three choices.

In fact he moved up for me because he is now somewhat of an underdog and I always root for an underdog. I'm a Democrat.

Kerry in a way had no other choice than to say that Hussein's capture made America safer because it is consistent with the stance he took with regard to the Iraq war vote and his subsequent explanations for it. Kerry doesn't strike me as a man who would abandon an idea for a feeling. But that's my read on him and it isn't influenced by others' dislike.

I don't know that Kerry is lying about his position. I do know that the way the question is phrased is a "leading question" and in its own way dishonest.

I don't know that Kerry is concerned in the least about propping up Bu$h. His history in politics leads me to think he'd like to beat the shit out of Bu$h and his cartel/family. I choose not to impugn the motives of any candidate, including Kerry, when it comes to their view of this thuggish administration.

It is clear that Kerry considers Dean his immediate rather than his ultimate adversary. But I in no way believe that everything that issues from Kerry's mouth is first meant as a score against Dean. I apply that same benefit of the doubt to all the candidates.

In the final analysis, I'm eager to hear what the candidates say and what positions they hold. They are interviewing for a job of which I am one of the millions of employers. I'm not interested in protecting them. They will rise to the occasion or they will fail. Like we all do.

[ModerateMiddle]

37. An "honest" question?

using this line:

Do you approve of Kerry lying about this?

Gimme a damn break.

How about,

Do you approve of Dean's stupidity in making the remark in a Foreign Policy address that was supposed to shore up his centrist/foreign policy credentials?

[stickdog]

39. Of course I do.

It was, by far, the most important part of his speech.

Dean has the guts to tell the truth about Bush's little trillion dollar Iraqi quagmire. Meanwhile, Kerry has gall to lie in a way that props up Bush just to score points against Dean.

[zulchzulu]

42. Utter claptrap

So let's picture this event if it was your neighborhood.

Some punk who was robbing homes and beating up people gets arrested and thrown in jail.

Is your neighborhood safer? No?

Saddam committed many war crimes and was a tyrant when in power. He threatened and attacked his neighbors, killed many of his own citizens and ruled with an iron fist and did not allow dissent. He has committed many crimes that human rights organizations have been monitoring and protesting for years.

Sounds like a cool guy, huh...

So the World (and namely the region) is not safer now that Saddam is in a cage? OK, it's not all peaceful and heaven, but it is at least a notch or two safer, no?

[Scott Lee]

51. Look at what's happening in Iraq today, and tell me it's safer.

What's wrong? Can I get you a glass of water or something?

[sistersofmercy]

38. I don't see it as props to bush* or lying but think it was a

miscalculated statement on Kerry's part. No I didn't like it because I believe we and the world in general, are no safer since Saddam's capture. In fact, I think Saddam's capture puts our troops more in harm's way. There is my honest answer and to call Kerry's response props to bush* or lying is an unfair stretch.

[bigtree]

40. inflammatory premises

"Do you approve of Kerry lying about this?"

"Is it OK for Kerry to deceitfully prop up Bush like this if it gives him a chance to score points against Dean?"

loaded questions.

smear.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

44. I looked and looked but couldn't find

an honest question for Kerry supporters here.

[retyred]

48. At one time dean thought Saddam was a threat

and he thought that war might be inevitable to take out Saddam given a 30-60 day window, did he lie then about Saddam being a threat? Did he think the world would be safer with Saddam gone back then?

Is America safer with Saddam gone? Thats debatable, maybe not now, but in the long run probably. Most Americans feel we are safer and isn't that who'll vote with that in mind?

Is the orange alert proof we're not safer? no, the orange alert is a diversion to the "Kurds found Saddam" story or the "bush admin could've stopped 9/11 story".

Most Americans see no link between the orange alert and being safer because of Saddam's capture. Most believe the orange alert pertains to al-qaeda and not Saddam, so in their mind capturing Saddam very well could've made us safer from Saddam in the future.

IMO, dean's trying to use logic to state his case while Kerry used what Americans percieve as reality. Given that I think Kerry was right to say what he did the way he did and I personall don't see how this is a lie, not if it's what he believes.



retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

[Scott Lee]

50. Not enough of a threat to start a war over, he didn't.

Ever. That's the whole crux of Dean's opposition to the Iraq invasion.

Tell me, how many times must this be posted by the Dean opponents? Is this just stubborness or something worse?