Blogcritics: Comments on AMERICA IS SAFER WITH SADDAM OUT OF POWER!

Comment by ruefus

Fri, 1 Oct 2004 13:05:41 EDT

ritter lost his credibility and his audience trying to pick up little girls via internet

Comment by JR

Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:08:41 EDT

Hit a country that is working to develop WMD too early and we are aggressive, do it after they have the technology, then we are nice and polite, and too late to do any good. Well, those do seem to be the only two policies Bush is capable of. I'd like to see what options a new President might come up with.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:16:41 EDT

If it was about hitting "a country that is working to develop WMD" then Iraq was not it. The best the administration could come up was that Iraq had "plans for programs to develop WMDs." Countries that were working to develop nuclear WMDs include North Korea and Iran. These were left untouched, and one of them now does have nukes, and is progressing with their missile capability (Japan and South Korea are in reach, and rumors of longer range missiles that can reach the U.S. West coast abound). Invading Iraq instead of addressing the real threats to the U.S. was a reckless, dangerous and endangering move, possibly the worst mistake in the last hundred years.

Comment by Shark

Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:07:38 EDT

BTW: I wonder if most Americans, like me, are REALLY GETTING SICK of hearing about how swell Iraq is doing with all the BILLIONS we've poured down that drain. Fuck Bush. Fuck Iraq. Fuck the Iraqis. Charity begins at home.

Comment by Shark

Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:05:23 EDT

Two Words that everyone seems to have forgotten: Scott. Ritter. uh.. remember him? For months before the war, this expert on WMDs was on TV every day explaining how Saddam DIDN'T HAVE WMDs. He was ostracized and humiliated by the right. And he disappeared -- from the media and from memory. How friggin' convenient. Scott. Ritter Was Right.

Comment by SFC SKI

Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:04:31 EDT

So how soon is too soon, Hal? Hit a country thatis working to develop WMD too early and we are aggressive, do it too after they have the technology, then we are nice and polite, and too late to do any good. "Saddam could not "have continued his pursuit of WMD, continued to terrorize his own nation, etc." as he wasn't doing that." He was terrorizing his own nation, as well as supporting activities outside his borders. "His sons may have been doing that in a small way, but nothing compared to the terror and killing going on now." So, they could maima and torture, and as long as the numbers were small it was OK. And if they only worked to develop WMD in small amounts, that is OK, too?

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:52:19 EDT

Sooner wasn't better with Saddam, though. Saddam could not "have continued his pursuit of WMD, continued to terrorize his own nation, etc." as he wasn't doing that. His sons may have been doing that in a small way, but nothing compared to the terror and killing going on now. He was contained and constrained more than adequately, and could have been dealt with later. In the meantime, we could have continued reducing the threat of radical Islamist terrorism instead of increasing it around the world, as was done as a result of the invasion.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:43:01 EDT

this is the short-term view and there really isn't any arguing between different fundamental philosophies: the long-term view is that Iraq would have had to be addressed at some point, so sooner is better than later as Saddam would have continued his pursuit of WMD, continued to terrorize his own nation, etc. I think this makes more sense

Comment by simon hb

Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:41:30 EDT

Surely the question should be 'Is America safer with Bush in power?'

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:01:06 EDT

We would be safer with Saddam still in power because of what taking him out did, and what was not done because all the focus was removed from fighting terrorists

Invading Iraq took resources from fighting radical Islamists and instead created new ones.
Radical Islamism has spread to more than 60 countries, and even once moderate Islamic countries like Morocco are now turning into bases for terrorists:
'In Iraq, a problem has been created that didn't exist there before. The events in Iraq have had a profound impact on the entirety of the jihad movement.' Judge Jean-Louis Brugulere, French anti-terrorism investigator.
'Once these guys have gone to Iraq to train, they know how to use weapons and explosives. That's the first level: Iraq as a new Afghanistan, a Chechnya.' Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, director of Frances intelligence agency.
'Al Qaeda is increasingly being invoked as an ideological motivation of Islamic radicals.' Gijs de Vries, counter-terrorism coordinator for the European Union.
'Destroying Al Qaeda will not resolve the problem.' M.J. Gohel, head of the Asia-Pacific Foundation, a London think tank.
Port security still is unlikely to catch terrorists or stop the entry of WMDs - 95% of the cargo is still not inspected.
None of the chemical plants in the U.S. are protected, yet explosions at many could kill more than a million people.
3 million illegal aliens entered this country and of the others that were caught, 20,000 non-Mexicans were released on their own recognizance into the U.S.

We are not safer because saddam is in a cell. Abandoning the war against terrorists gave them a huge boost.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Fri, 1 Oct 2004 03:43:40 EDT

In fairness, True Focus, Kerry said his four-point plan could be found at JohnKerry.com. And, yes, it is there. I suggest you read the plan as presented in its entirety and judge it for yourself.

Comment by Mac Diva

Fri, 1 Oct 2004 02:50:29 EDT

So, you've followed up a racist entry with a puerile one? We're so impressed.