Dean supporters who feel we are safer now that Saddam is captured

[TexasPatriot]

I just want to see if there are any. I see Dr Dean's statement on the subject defended vigorously by supporters of many candidates - including and most actively his own. Are there any Dean Supporters who disagree?

(this isnt intended to be a focus for a debate on the merits of the argument... i just want to know if there are any)

[La_Serpiente]

1. I don't support Dean

but I also share his sentiment that we are not any safer now that Sadaam is gone. However, did he recognize it as a good thing that he was captured?

[eyesroll]

3. Gov. Dean's press release on the capture:

WEST PALM BEACH-- Governor Dean issued the following statement this morning:

"This is a great day for the Iraqi people, the US, and the international community.

"Our troops are to be congratulated on carrying out this mission with the skill and dedication we have come to know of them.

"This development provides an enormous opportunity to set a new course and take the American label off the war. We must do everything possible to bring the UN, NATO, and other members of the international community back into this effort.

"Now that the dictator is captured, we must also accelerate the transition from occupation to full Iraqi sovereignty."

http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002683.html
(Be careful if you're on dial-up. This link includes lots of comments.)

[La_Serpiente]

7. thanks

I was worried he didn't say it was a good thing.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Seeing as how we're at "Ernie"......

[wryter2000]

2. I agree with Governor Dean

And it seems to me he's right. We don't seem any safer to me because SH is gone. Now, if it were Bin Laden, that would be a different story.

[cthrumatrix]

4. You won't find any takers...any sane person just needs to look at the

holiday alerts and the non-stop plane action.

But the press won't be point this out...adn who in the media really wants to point out the silliness of the alerts?

[Dookus]

5. mixed feelings....

admittedly, I'm not a Dean supporter, but I have mixed feelings about his statement.

Clearly, it's better to have a known than an unknown. While Saddam was missing, we didn't know where he was, what he was doing, what he was capable of. Clearly it's better to have him out of the picture, because it reduces the uncertainties.

Does that make us safer? I dunno. Does it make us SAFE? Definitely not.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. No way

Saddam had nothing to do with terrorists. This was just a blatant grab for Iraqi oil. The mere fact the country is on orange alert now belies the premise that we are safer.

[Gloria]

9. Dean's comments about Saddam/not being safer are probably correct..HOWEVER

perception is the key and the GOP have a couple of things in their arsenal including how they will put Saddam into the broader picture including these recent items:

Libya--Now, real reports (like I've heard on the BBC) will say that Libya is not exactly within the same sphere as the rest of the Arab Nations and that this rapprochment has been going on for 10 years (Clark has said that, too)...but the Bush machine is pointing to this as a direct result of Iraq...

Iran--agreeing to let inspectors in from the International Atomic Energy group...negotiating also for quite awhile...but another thing that will be used evidence that Iraq has shaken up the Arabic Nations and the region.

As I heard a Canadian diplomat discuss today--perception often wins out over what is really going at the (geo)political level....

So, you can bet, this broad statement by Dean will be picked apart, no problem. ESPECIALLY with a shocking % of Americans believing that Saddam and Al-Qaeda are related.......

[bowens43]

14. still , it's the truth

if we can't win with the truth, why bother?

[onebigbadwulf]

10. Just as many troops are dying

Obviously no one is safer now

[MercutioATC]

11. Had we caught SH is some high-tech underground complex, maybe.

You know, someplace where he could actually have have been "running things". We caught him in a dirt hole. The man wasn't "running" anything...he was hiding.

I think the attacks on U.S. soldiers have less to do with Saddam loyalists who will stop now that he's been captured and much more to do with the growing segment of the Iraqi population that resents our being there. Until we leave, the attacks will continue.

[crushbush04]

12. Deans knee-jerk reaction is troubling

Think about it this way...Saddam has terrorist connections and international connections to other states that were or are still involved in terrorist activity. Example, In early 2003 he had a contract for weapons from the North Koreans who stiffed him after getting 10 million dollars in advance. His secret cooperation with Syria, Jordan, Libya could be revealed. Think of what he knows and how it could enhance our knowlege of what is truly going on in that region of the world.

He made deals with several countries including the United States for weapons. He has first hand knowlege of U.S.-Iraq, French-Iraq, Russian-Iraq deals in the '80s and '90s. His dealings with Arab broadcast networks that involved bribes and other payoffs could be scandalous.

While I was against the war I say his capture cannot be understated. Is it the end all? certainly not. However we are safer because he could provide invaluable information through which we can enhance our national security.

For Dean to just say that offhand it doesnt help is not ignorant but demonstrates a disregard for the basic facts.

This is the only thing that disturbs me about Dean. And it is not necessary. He can win without all these crappy statements.

[bowens43]

13. I don't think so.

Saddam was never a threat to the security of the United States. We are no safer because of his capture. None of the countries you mention in your post are a threat to the security of the United States. If all of those countries cooperated as one, they would not be threat to the security of the United States. You greatly underestimate the power of deterrence. As far as terrorism goes, the threat is no greater and no less then it has always been. Dean was right, absolutely and unequivocally.

[crushbush04]

17. While his threat was

Most certainly overstated by the "war folk" could you not agree . that we are safer because he could provide invaluable information through which we can enhance our national security?

That is my point and only point!

Of course none of these countries would think of attacking the Sates. Please...Do you think I am picturing Libyan submarines in the Hudson river.

However, are you suggesting his capture was worthless? Is there no practical valuable info to be gained from Saddams capture? Think of what he could know people.... I cant get past what he could know. At least after considering that ...then only one conclusion is possible...Dean was and still is wrong.

[Cocoa]

15. Bush and Cheney are safer

I'll give you that.

But Dean wasn't talking about them, he was talking about you and me. I've never made illicit deals with Saddam, have you?

[sandnsea]

18. Facing facts would be wise

You listed some of them nicely. But kneejerk hyperbole is so much more fun and exciting! And yes, Dean would have a hell of alot better chance without it, but then he wouldn't have any red meat for his base. A real conundrum for Dean.

[crushbush04]

21. LOL You are right about kneejerk

being more exciting, but he is killng his chances with this stuff. He has tapped into something real here and may be squandering it! I am a Dean supporter who thinks it was nuts for him to just say that .

People are so wrapped up....in this " *sh cant do anything right" stuff that they fail to see how historic this could be. Don't you want to know who made the deal to give him chemical weapons in the 80s'? My only hope is that he doesn't get Jack Ruby'ed before he spills the beans.

[newyawker99]

23. Hi crushbush04!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[crushbush04]

24. You make me...

Feel so warm and fuzzy all over....

[dd123]

16. We are not safer because we used everything we had to

get the guy who DIDN'T attack us and now we're scared to death that the guy who DID attack us will attack us again.

[w4rma]

19. Former Senator, John Glenn, pretty much said exactly what I was thinking.

…
John Glenn -- former hero-astronaut, Democratic senator and failed presidential candidate from Ohio -- paused amid celebrations marking the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers' first flight to ruminate on Saddam's capture.

"No," he told CNN. "I guess I don't feel that much safer."
…
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/121803/nat_2006262.shtml

[TeacherCreature]

20. hell no, if I was that dumb I would be supporting someone else

:7

[NoPasaran]

22. Not me

Not only has it not made us safer I doubt it has really brought the end of the Iraq War much closer.