Is Dean Naive For Saying We Are Not Safer After Saddam's Capture?

[DrFunkenstein]

"The capture of Saddam Hussein hasn't made America safer," the former Vermont governor said in direct contradiction of Bush.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=8&u=/ap/saddam_democrats

<>

"Nuance matters in foreign policy," Dean said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62184-2003Dec13.html

Now, I would argue that the capture of Saddam has not made us safe, but that it has made us safer. And while it has not stabilized Iraq, I truly believe that it has contributed to stabilization (whether or not Iraq will ever be truly "stable" is another matter).

So, is this a matter of Dean just saying something "poorly" and providing yet another page in the long book of gaffes the GOP is compiling, or does Dean actually mean that the capture has zero effect on American security?

If, as a wise man once said, nuance matters in foreign policy, what are we to make of Dean's tin ear? He is, after all, applying for the position of Chief Diplomat. "At least he's better than Bush" is not exactly a convincing argument.

In coordinating a massive global effort against terrorism, the Chief Diplomat has to deal with extremely delicate - even volatile - situations and people, from Pakistan to Indonesia to Kazakhistan to Taiwan. As we saw with Israel, even the smallest parsing of words can set a region in a tailspin.

That said, what are the thoughts of Deanies and non-Deanies alike on this quote and the problem at large?

[never cry wolf]

1. No, not naive at all

He is quite correct!

We here in this country never had anything to fear from Sadaam.

[K8-EEE]

77. For Crying Out Loud...Did He LOOK Like A Threat To You?

What a joke. Everytime GWB makes one of those speeches about how safe he is making the world, something goes KaBOOM!

[SemperEadem]

79. Dean is right... Iraq is a little safer for Iraqis and Kurds

but over here, we still have one little issue yet to be cleaned up and that is Osama Bin Laden and the Afghanistan half-ass invasion which has now allowed the Taliban to re-root itself there. Saddam isn't the head of Al Qaida (sp?), and they are who flew the planes into the buildings over here, not Saddam's myrmidons.

Doesn't look too much like Osama and Saddam were blazin' on the celli's this past week to each other. So who knows where Osama is now... or where Al Qaida will pop up again.

We still have a problem, Washington.

[Raya]

83. I will give it to him -- as straight answer!

Oh, but it was not an answer to a question. I was a speech.

Sure he would have waffled if asked directly.

[mzmolly]

2. No he's right!

Which is why I support him.

[kodi]

3. No.

.

[wuushew]

4. He should have said we are no safer from terrorism

unfortunately Bush defines the insurgency in Iraq as terrorism so Dean might lose the battle of semantics in that as well.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

5. Well...

I never thought that Hussein was a threat in the first place, so his capture doesn't make us any safer, in my opinion, since it doesn't really address the real dangers out there --- I always thought that Hussein was a red herring.

[OrAnarch]

6. Well, did they find him in California...

Working on a dirty bomb?



Huh? Is this post a joke?

[Cocoa]

7. he's stating the obvious

we have 150,000 troops occupying Saddam's palaces, Saddam was in a hole.

And further, Saddam was only a potential threat even when he was in complete control of Iraq.

[Scott Lee]

8. Once again, Dean is right.

And Doctor Funk has plaid another word game. "Not safe, but safER" says he.

So we are "safER" by pulling an unkempt old man out of a hole (notice the attacks on troops go on unabated). Honestly, this stuff has to come right out of The Onion.

[ozone_man]

62. Yup, heard it on NPR tonight, same old Iraq situation.

I really don't think Saddam was directing much of anything from down in that foxhole. Not safe, but safer sounds pretty accurate to me.

[Padraig18]

9. He's absolutely right!

We are not safer from terrorism, and our soldiers in Iraq are not safer from insurgents.

[drfemoe]

50. I only wish they were 'safer'

:cry:

[xultar]

10. Dean is correct, we aren't safer with Uncle Saddy in custody. n/t

[slinkerwink]

11. No, Dean's right!

The capture of Saddam did not make us safer----it never did. Iraq is not stable by any long shot now....and Al Qaeda is the worse threat out there along with KOREA. Did you even read the entirety of Dean's foreign policy speech? I think not.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

12. Some people may question that stance now...

But they're still celebrating ("Mission accomplished" anyone?) When things in Iraq are in the next 11 months, about the same (or worse) than they have been in the last 7... I think people will look back and think of Dean's stance as totally reasonable.

[KFC]

13. Obviously we are safer

If only marginally. Dean surely knows this. I think he is just countering Bush to keep himself in the spotlight.

[bowens43]

16. How are we safer considering saddam wasn't a threat

to us in the first place?

[wuushew]

24. According to the "media" many in Iraq feared his return to power

how a dechevled, elderly man with no central authority would accomplish this is beyond me. However if this psychological roadblock is removed I can't see how it would not increase the rate of intelligence gathering and use of informants to find weapons stashes, key wanted figures etc.

[bowens43]

45. So?

The WMD, if they existed at all, were never a threat to the United States and I still don't buy the Saddam / bin laden link theory. Finding weapons stashes and and key wanted figures will have no effect on the security of the US.

[wuushew]

53. Last time I checked American soliders were also citizens

..so what I said was true, from a certain point of view.

[dsc]

19. Just how are we safer

There were two explosions within a few hours of that news conference. And Saddam murdered precisely 0 Americans on American soil. So Iraq is the same place and he wasn't harming us here. So just how are we safer?

[Don Claybrook]

21. Would you explain how we're safer by one iota?

If only marginally? I really don't understand how the American public is safer in the least.

Thank you.

[edzontar]

29. I disagree..it is a wash at best....

We'll have to see how the story develops in Iraq--but that is a ammter of our soldiers' safety in an oocupation force.

The capture obviously means nothing as far as domestic threats are concerned.

[bowens43]

14. Of course not.

How has Saddam's capture changed anything? It's obvious from where Saddam was captured and his condition that he wasn't in charge of or coordinating the attacks on US soldiers. Bin laden is still out there and Saddam, a man who was never a threat to the US will soon be turned over to the Iraqis for execution. Safer? No , we're not safer.
In fact we ware probably less safe. Although Saddam was hated, US interference in Arab affairs is more hated.

[NicoleM]

15. Dean is 100% wrong.

Has he forgotten about what Saddam did to us on 9/11?

Oh, wait. . .nevermind.

[LuminousX]

27. LOL

[killbotfactory]

17. I don't think we are safer

Saddam had little to do with any danger of terrorism against the US. The way Bush went about the Iraq war has endangerd us, not made us any safer.

[snippy]

81. Agreed. Americans are less safe not more because of Bush.

This will play out over many years because of the demographics of the muslim world which are heavily skewed towards a very young population. On September 12, 2001 there were maybe a few hundred thousand muslims younger than 14 who hated the US. Now there are a few hundred million. The longer we occupy Iraq, the more those numbers will increase.

Some percentage of those young muslims who hate the US will be Islamic fundamentalists, and some of them will be attracted to leaders like bin Laden. There will be ups and downs in the frequency and severity of attacks against Americans and American interests, but there will be more, not fewer, in the future.

[LynneSin]

18. The only Naive people are those who think we are safer

Because the attacks will continue against our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is something we have to focus on during the election, that our world is not safer because we captured Hussein, but only when we get our troops out of the Middle East and allow the UN to take over

[JohnKleeb]

20. No Doc Funk, I think hes right

We arent any safer, I bet the guys in Iraq are just as afraid now as they were the day before he was caught.

[seventhson]

22. We are NOT safe as Long as BUSH&Co is in the Executive Offices

Saddam was created BY Bush & Company. Hitler was created in large part by Bush & Co..

It stands to reason that we will not be safer until the Bushes are captured and tried for their crimes against humanity (including providing the poison chemicals and gasses which Saddam used to gas Kurds and his own people with Bush/Rummie/Cheney approval).

I know Dr. Howie cannot come right out and SAY it this way. But I'll bet he sure as hell wants to.

Bushes belong on the dock at the International Court of Justice alongside Saddam and Osama and Sharon and all the rest of the dictators and tyrants who kill innocents.

Howard Knows!

He knows too that we are no safer today than two days ago. And Funk knows this too.

[LuminousX]

23. It's a great set-up

It is difficult to prove otherwise. He is turning the Terror Alert against Bush. If Bush raises the terror alert now, he proves Dean right. If he doesn't raise the terror alert, Bush loses the 'fear' that has kept people loyal to him. It is a delightful catch-22.

Then we get Bush saying he is eager to show Dean how much safer the country is. Now if there is a domestic terror attack, Bush has sealed his fate.

If nothing happens, if things go smoothingly, then foreign policy/national security won't be hot topics for the election.

[WhosNext]

25. Dean looks HAMMERED in that picture.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

40. You add so much...

To the discourse with that comment.

[WhosNext]

46. Seriously, doesn't he?

Pick a better picture at least.

[sandnsea]

26. There's the potential to be safer

A Middle East without Saddam Hussein opens up all kinds of possibilities in decreasing WMD and the pretend reasons for countries seeking WMD in the region. Including Israel's. Iran and other countries won't need them to defend against Saddam. Eventually Israel won't need them to defend against the other Arab countries. So while we aren't necessarily safer today, the potential is absolutely certain. For him not to recognize that shows real naivete in foreign policy.

For him to say what he said was just stupid politically. One more dumb statement to be used against him next year.

[LuminousX]

32. Then you should applaud it

But I strongly disagree. It puts Bush in the position to have to prove that we are safer. That is a difficult thing to prove.

[sandnsea]

37. Reality doesn't matter?

It's all politics, is that what I'm hearing?

[LuminousX]

73. No, what you are hearing is what you want to hear

I have no control over your perceptions.

[Donna Zen]

49. Correct answer:

It might change the regional dynamics and with that comes an opportunity to improve our relationships with other countries. With someone other than a monkey in the WH, this could present the people of Iraq with a chance to rebuild and improve their lives. Handled incorrectly, we will lose the moment.

sandsea is right. What is does show is how one does or does not handle the hard questions to avoid sound bites that will offer the junta opportunities to attack.

It will be interesting to see how Clark handles the questions from von Zahn at 8:00.

[mzmolly]

28. Are Americans naive for believing the capture of Saddam makes us safer?

Now there's a better question ;)

[thebgrkng]

30. We ARE safer...

Iraqis are/were afraid of Saddam. Now they have less reason to be. They know Saddam isnt coming back. Iraq is as much a battle for hearts and minds as anything else. The people there need saddam gone in order to get on with their futures. They need more than that, but they do need that.

We might not be safer than we were last year, but we are definately safer than last week.

-TheBgrKng

[VOX]

71. "Iraq is as much a battle for hearts and minds" -- says it all...

Do you honestly believe that the U.S. unilaterally invaded Iraq for altruistic reasons?

In a pragmatic sense, just how does Saddam's capture make us any safer from terrorism? Even is Saddam *is* involved in global terrorism, his part would have to be marginal.

The U.S. is occupying a foreign country where it is not welcome -- and sadly, this is a lesson that we never seem to be able to learn. Vietnam was about "winning hearts and minds" too, and look how that turned out -- we never weakened their resolve one iota, not with bombs or the "promise" of democracy.

Our presence in Iraq is reviled by most Middle Easterners. Iraq needs the U.S. gone so it can get on with its future. The longer we are over there, the more *unsafe* we are.

[yankeedem]

78. Are you Iraqi?

The question was if the capture has made AMERICA safer. Now is America's treasury safe from Repug war profiteers? As long as Shrubco is "in charge", the answer is no.

[SemperEadem]

82. you mean our access to Iraqi oil is safer

They have more reason to be more fearful now than with Hussein in power because at least they knew who the evil was. Someone far more vicious could be installed and things be way worse than when Saddam was in power, brutal as he is.

[tom_paine]

31. I would tend to agree with Dean here

Saddam was locked inside a hole. He sure wasn't co-ordinating insurgents.

[DrFunkenstein]

42. Actually, There Is Significant Evidence That He WAS Coordinating

Attacks. They found a list of minutes from various "cells" (sp?) in his spidey-hole.

[Don Claybrook]

44. And you know that because...

...your government told you so?

Oh, OK, just checking.

[library_max]

33. The capture of Saddam might even escalate the attacks.

Lots of Iraqis want us gone. One of our excuses to stay was that otherwise Saddam might regain power. Now that's not going to happen. So unless we're leaving, I don't see how it makes even our troops safer.

[bleedingheart]

34. Do you feel safer? I don't.

Dean is right. The war on terror is still there and with so much attention being paid to Iraq we are losing focus.

[chaumont58]

35. If I remember right, you are a Kerry supporter and......

will find fault with anything Dean says, period.

[Crunchy Frog]

36. Non-Deanie here

but I think it is far to early to say whether or not this makes us "safer". As far as the American people themselves go, Saddam was never a threat to us in the first place. I think this will change the dynamic of the situation in Iraq, but we have not idea in what way. It could in fact end up making things far more dangerous for our troops, especially if people are more motivated to join the resistance due to no longer fearing that Saddam might return. It's simply to early to say one way or the other. And no, I don't see the remark as being particularly irresponsible.

[supernova]

38. We're no safer than we were on Sept 12, 2001

Variety of reasons for this:

1) Militaristic answers to diplomatic questions never work. All you do is piss off the neighbors (Germany, France), and make friends with slimeballs (General Musharaf of Pakistan, A. Chalabi of Iraq - Oy! what are we going to be digging up on him in 20 years?! Here we go again.)

2). Saddam wasn't the problem in the first place. He has no WMD, He as no nukes. He was not the problem on Sept 11. While he deserves on his own to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity, we deserve better, the victims and their families deserve better, than simply finding a convenient scapegoat upon which to hang our grief.

3) The problem of Arabic humiliation and festering agony still exists today. They exist because we keep people in power that ME folks do not want.

- Saudia Arabia is still a stagnating, stultifying, divine-right monarchy. They are unwilling to face the problems in their own backyard. One can only hope. It's no accident that a majority of the hijackers were Saudis. Osama used their symbolism factor.

-Our good friends the Egyptians have an appalling human rights record. Their own people know this and yet they can't agitate for social change without getting locked up...or shot.

- The Israel/Palestine issue continues to elude everbody. And we are not seen as an honest broker for both sides here. We are seen as favoring the Israelis. Whether this is true or not is immaterial. This perception exists in the M.E. What are we prepared to do about it?

- Syria... If there's one place in the ME that makes Egypt look good, it's Syria.

They people in these countries are not stupid. They are aware that their governments repress and harass them. They are aware that we do business with these jerks for our own gain at the expense of the people there.

4)We have no more Arabic speakers in our intelligence and diplomatic communities than we did on Sept 11. Now, to be fair, I think the gov't has at least tried to advertise and recruit more Arabic speakers, but are they on the job? Are they busy deciphering all that "chatter". Speaking of...

5) One of the admitted problems of Sept 11 was that we were getting lots of info with no way to organize, analyze, or synthesis it. "We didn't connect the dots" No evidence yet that the Dept of Homeland Security is any better at the analysis that they were 2 years ago.


Items 3 - 5 are long-term issues that will take decades to work out to the global common good. It will take work, work, work. It will take diplomacy, strategic-planning and thinking about something other than our short-term self-interest.

But heh, who cares? We just caught Saddam.

[CMT]

39. in what way are we or our soldiers safer?

it is pretty clear that Saddam wasn't calling the shots while on the lam.

[Zynx]

41. How the hell are we safer?

Saddam, particularly in his capacity there, was not a threat to the US. Dean is absolutely correct.

[eissa]

43. We at the DU don't agree on much

but I recall most of us being in almost complete agreement with the FACT that Saddam was never a threat to us. To his own people, yes, but internationally, no. So how does his capture, no matter how well-deserved, make us safer? No people, if anything it has made things WORSE. Say what you will about Saddam (and as a person whose family hails from Iraq, there is plenty of horrible things we can say about that creature), but his iron-fisted rule HELPED keep the likes of Osama out of Iraq. That's not the case anymore.

[DrFunkenstein]

47. Although I Clearly Was Referring To Stabilization, Deanies Ignore It?

I an not arguing that Saddam's capture justified the invasion, but that it DOES contribute to Iraq stability, ergo Middle East stability, ergo global stability, ergo American stability - ergo made us safer. Obviously, I didn't mean that Saddam posed a threat with his pistol, nor did I suggest that he had coordinated 9/11.

Again I pose the question, was Dean's phrase inexact or does he believe I am wrong? Either way, it seems like fodder for Rove.

[drfemoe]

54. deals with the devil as security device

On December 5, the handpicked Iraqi Ruling Council indicated it plans to revive Mukhabarat.

"We will use their own dogs to hunt them down," exclaimed Nabil al-Musawi, deputy president of the Iraqi National Congress and the party's chief of security. "To think that I am supporting this idea surprises even me. But we have to be realistic... If I have to deal with the devil for short-term gain for the sake of my people, then I will."

http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo12102003.html


On the streets, the conflict played out more openly and bloodily this fall. On a Monday night in November, a white station wagon pulled up to a roadside cigarette stand owned by Shakir Muhammad, a former officer in Mr. Hussein's Mukhabarat. Three masked men hopped out and shot him dead. "His face was all in blood," said one witness, Abu Asad. "They targeted his face."
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031214/ZNYT03/312140464

[OrAnarch]

56. haha....you are confusing context.

Dean's statement is one on the domestic saftey of America, as that is a high topic in republican talking points...hence, that is how we respond.


furthermore, you are asking the question about Iraq's stablility on the premise of us allready going to war, when it can be said that the statement was made from another context, in which he is stating that the entire process of going to war and removing saddam in the first place has made us no safer (we wouldn't have to stablize somethign we did not fuck up in the first place).


furthermore, in the general context of how this will play out only in Iraq, no one could possibly know yet. This may encourage attacks from those wishing to be free and not having their fears of Saddam's return hold em back. Our continued presence will also reveal us as occupiers. So, the point on which you are working is nothing but assumption, but I belive in other contexts you are clearly wrong.

[DrFunkenstein]

57. Is That An Old Quote?

I apologize if it is, but I'm pretty sure he just said it.

PS - Of course I'm working on assumption. I'm not a fortune teller, but I think this is genuinely a positive step towards the cooperation of the Iraqi people assuming Bush uses the opportunity to ease their minds about occupation. But even if he doesn't, this is a definite turning of a corner, and I think it is for the better. I am glad he is captured.

[OrAnarch]

58. time of the statement is not important

In saying capturing saddam doesn't make us more safe, the "capturing saddam" may refer to the entire process we had to follow to capture him (invasion, war, operation, etc). In which case, you would be wrong. You cannot dictate the context from a quote you never made, and when considering that this quote was made in the original context of domestic security, it is highly likely he was referring more the the entire move than a single operation that took place in a country far from our own.


Just something to think about...thats all. Im not a Dean supporter...just think the twist in the question is idiotic.


I do not see this as any turning point or anything equivelent (maybe a reference point). Rather, I see this as a variable which could be unrelated to insurgent freedom fighters, or directly dependent with a positive or negative relationship (too early to tell). Frankly speaking, to isolate this quote to this one context that is really not fully debatable yet for the sake of candidate bashing is ludicrous (especially when wrong in other contexts).

[DrFunkenstein]

60. So You Are Saying It Is Inexact And Poorly Put

I doubt that Dean really believes that the world isn't better off without Saddam around, but his phrasing is extremely sloppy and this is what I'm talking about. This concerns me for two reasons:

1)He has stockpiled tons of quotes that will make him look foolish when the ads with isolated quotes come out.

2)It does not recommend him to the job of Chief Diplomat, where language is much more delicate than two people talking in a bar (or chatting in political forum online).

[OrAnarch]

64. well....

"the world isn't better off without Saddam around" is not equivelent to "america is safer now that saddam is captured". I still am not sure that the first statement is correct if it is accomplished through such means as letting the American military machine, backed by Halliburton, remove him. How would your world be if you had to watch your 8 month year old child's skull ripped apart when a bomb landed on your house, and then have the rest of your children die from improper sanitation due to Halliburton not doing their job, only collecting money? Such means to an Ends may also stir anti-americanism, terrorism, global instability, etc, etc.....


And yes, perhaps many things Dean says, if taken by the single sentence, are considered poorley put and inexact. But then again, most people do not speak in single sentences. And for those with retention not large enough to consider a few paragraphs of any speaker, many speakers come off saying inexact statements. If I followed you around long enough collecting bits and pieces, wouldn't you look stupid? We all would. But the truth is that the stupid person is the one who missed the real message by searching for the one that will sink the candidate they are oppossed to.

[dpibel]

66. So you are saying you would like to change the grounds of the debate?

Your original post quoted Dean saying, "The capture of Saddam Hussein hasn't made America safer."

You now say, "I doubt that Dean really believes that the world isn't better off without Saddam around..." Which, you might agree, is so different a proposition as to bear no relationship to the original quote. In fact, Dean said nothing of the kind, the world not being America and better off not being in any way equivalent to safer.

Are you just being inexact, or do you really mean to change horses in mid-debate?

[IndianaGreen]

48. Saddam is not connected to Al-Qaeda, therefore we are NOT safer

Having all those troops in Iraq to keep the Iraqi people under the American jackboot also does not make us safer since the real terrorist, Osma bin Forgotten, is still on the loose and up to no good (recruiting a lot of new blood thanks to our Iraqi adventure).

The only naive people around here are the ones that think that we are safer because Saddam got caught, or that WMDs are in Iraq, or that Iraq was involved on 9/11. The Germans were naive too up until the very end of World War II.

[DrFunkenstein]

55. Like This?

Russert: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president.

http://www.deanrocks.com/page.cfm?p=1&c=9

But I understand, you didn't get a chance to read my last post.

[IndianaGreen]

69. Your topic was, are we "safer" since Saddam was captured

my answer was "No". I didn't realize that your real intention was to bash Dean.

One thing you failed to mention, since Saddam is caught, why can't we bring all the troops home NOW, as Dennis Kucinich says?

[CBHagman]

51. The capture of Saddam does NOTHING to make anyone safer.

In fact, there are certain scenarios under which it could mean a more deadly environment. Among those are:

*a backlash from those in the Middle East who feel humiliated by Saddam's capture.

*additional violent moves by Saddam supporters in Iraq. What more have they got to lose?

*increased recruitment among terrorist groups and various guerrillas, based on the symcbolism of Saddam's capture.

And let's not forget that the whole foray into Iraq DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop the next Timothy McVeigh or Mohamed Atta who wants to launch a terrorist attack. If someone wants to use explosives, launch a chemical or biological attack, or other violent means to create instability or fear, he or she can find ways to do it. The guy in the hole doesn't make a blind bit of difference.

Oh, and the person who sent anthrax through the mail? He or she is still out there, from what we can tell.

[jmowreader]

52. My version of this:

The capture of Saddam hasn't made us safe. It also hasn't made us safer.

As long as we have no concrete plan for getting out of Iraq, our people are in grave danger. We lost what, three people the day Saddam was captured?

We can agree on many things. We can all agree Saddam Hussein is a thug who killed many thousands of his people. The exact count is somewhat unimportant; we do know that he took a special joy in eliminating his political enemies by any means at his disposal. We can also agree that Saddam posed no threat to our people, at least until we illegally entered his country and started killing his people. Further, we can agree that Saddam was loathed by his subjects.

But is "having a hated ruler who shoots his enemies in the face all by himself" enough to justify going to war? I think not. The world thinks not. Most important, the Iraqis think not. And they have guns, smart boy, lots of 'em.

Then again, Saddam couldn't have been all that hated; the Iraqi government followed the Swiss model and passed out automatic rifles for people to keep at home. Everyone had one. If Saddam was such an absolute asshole that his people wanted to rise up against him, there were enough guns in the hands of the civilian populace that the Iraqi people could have Ceaucescued him with relative ease. But that never happened, and the reason is simple: look at the countries surrounding Iraq. Hardcore Islamic theocracies, all of them. Which is worse: Saddam, who might shoot you if you piss him off; or a government official walking down the street who beats your wife for wearing lipstick and your son because his butt's too high when he prays? All Islamic theocracies have muttaya; Saddam didn't, and that is, in my opinion, why no one shot him before. Because the next dictator would import some muttaya if he couldn't get any together before Friday prayers.

Yes, I'm rambling. Sorry. The point is simple: as long as the Iraqi people think we're a bunch of marauders who are in Iraq only to steal their oil, our people won't be safe.

[DrFunkenstein]

59. Even Dean Conceded That Saddam Posed A Threat

Just not an imminent one.

Secondly, I anticipate a spike in attacks in the near future, but an eventual dwindling from Saddam supporters. However, that is no guarantee about those with other agendas (and they are many). Obviously, there are many actions that Bush can take to negate these gains, but that does not mean they aren't gains.

Thridly, I disagree with your characterization of the Saddam vs. Armed Fundamentalists situtation. It is hard for us to understand the attributes Iraqis gave this ruthless tyrant, but let's just say that there was no way for an uprising to occur without foreign assistance, particularly after the devastation of sanctions.

And I agree that we must change the perception (well, reality, actually) that we are there to leech out their oil on the cheap. But that doesn't mean that Saddam's capture doesn't open up a good deal of opportunity. Whether or not that opportunity is squandered, we will have to see.

[karabekian]

61. yes he is naive

n/c

[Ksec]

63. Are we safer? Nope Not a bit.

This capture was about personal vengeance of a political family in the US. The Bushs managed to take a personal vendetta and get 500 Americans killed over it.

[nolabels]

67. As long as * is a squatter at 1600 Pensylvania all bets are off for me

Knowing all the dragoons that are now called Enemy #1 were once friends of one or another of the cabal, why would that be skeptical?

[VermontDem2004]

65. No it has not made us safer

He was a two bit dictator we had in a box. He didn't even control his entire country.

[deutsey]

68. I think you're nit-picking

Dean has been emphasizing (since before the invasion, actually) that we need strong support from the world community in resolving problems like those posed by Saddam Hussein by military means.

Many people have pointed out how George Bush has squandered this support that the world readily gave to us after 9/11 by ramming his "my way or the highway" approach to diplomacy down everyone's throat with Iraq.

This, in my opinion, has left us isolated and more vulnerable and, therefore, less safe. Capturing Hussein, who never posed any signifiant threat to us or to the region, is a great human rights victory (if only they would capture and try Pinochet and other brutal dictators and former US allies).

But until we begin to repair the strained and broken relationships we now have with our traditional allies, no, capturing Hussein does not make us safer.

[Manix]

70. I agree with Dean 100 %

nt

[Kamika]

72. You have to ask yourself.. safer from what?

It's like someone asks you.. are you safer in Maine because a murderer in California got sentenced to jail?

Well yes I guess I am but it's not like it really mattered.


If you're nitpicking Dean was wrong.. but the whole question is weird.. I doubt we're safer from a terrorist nut who wants to blow something up.

[moondust]

74. Mr. Dean is correct.

No real threats from Saddam for the past 12 years, only imagined ones.

North Korea, on the other hand, ...

[Jacobin]

75. I think your statement quoted below is quite naive

Now, I would argue that the capture of Saddam has not made us safe, but that it has made us safer

You provide no argument or facts to back up that statement. Most people who study Iraq, and in fact the Bush I regime, believed that having a non-sectarian military dictator in Iraq would prevent that country from becoming an islamic fundamentalist state which would support exporting radicalism throughout the world. They were correct. He brutally repressed the factions of his country and did not allow the islamic fundamentalists any power. There has never been any attack on our country by someone or group from Iraq.

The same people who study the region are uniformly convinced that if Iraq holds an election that the majority Shiites will elect an islamic fundamentalist cleric, closest to Iran philosophically, and much closer to Osama in world view than Saddam ever was.

Accordingly, the view of most (not counting the propagandists here) who study the region is that the ouster of Saddam will result in an ayatollah running the country, who will be very bad for our geo-political interests. This assumes that the U.S. does not appoint a successor brutal dictator to replace Saddam and repress Iraqis.

For this reason, Dr. Dean is unquestionably and absolutely correct.

[VOX]

76. The longer we are in Iraq and the Middle East, the less safe we are...

We aren't there for altrustic reasons. We are there to fulfull the agenda of a few neocons who think that God has told them to grab the world's resources before anyone else does.

Dean is right on this -- nuance does matter in foreign policy. The current administration flipped off the UN, flipped off most of Europe, and has killed thousands of innocent people in the process.

After 9/11, we had an outpouring of good will from all over the world, and that could have been built upon to usher in a tremendous opportunity for peace and cooperation from every far-flung spot on of the globe. Terrorism wouldn't have stood a chance in a world united against it.

Oh yeah, I sure feel safer when my country is jackbooting around the in the Middle East. Christ, we've made some hard, hard enemies for *decades* to come.

[sendero]

80. Anyone in the U.S.

... who was ever actually afraid of Saddam Hussien should go hide under their mommy's skirt.

[Old and In the Way]

84. Gotta disagree.

If anything, Bush actions vis-a-vis Iraq could make us less safe.

We know that Iraq had nothing to do with AQ and 9/11 terror. Even considering the slaughter we visited on Iraq in 1991, they had perpetrated any violence against us in the USA. The only act was against Bush...and there's cause to wonder if that wasn't a set-up by the Kuwaiti's.

But now, there are thousands of Iraqi's that may truly hate us. Sure, SH was an evil man, but that hardly matters to thise who have lost loved ones in this war of oil occupation.

One could make a case that we are less safe today with Iraqi revenge adding to the potential of terrorism acts on the US

[arewethereyet]

85. what would you say if half your campaign was kicked out from under ?

ITs gutsy. Won't play but it was worth a try.

[littlejoe]

86. Naiive? Not in the least. Just plain smart!