how to shut up Bush with "better off without Saddam"

[private_ryan]

the equation leaves out the dead US soldiers. It's not like we just made it happened via a signature. If I was Kerry, I'd point that getting rid of Saddam the Bush way, is to blame for the deaths. Maybe insert a do you realize the number of young US soldiers that have died? Mention the deaths and maybe Bush will show that he really doesn't care that much.

Bush will use this line, over and over again. This needs to be dealt with.

[Infomaniac]

1. Good idea.

Most 'murcans now believe that the costs for this war are not worth the benefit of having evil ol' Saddam out of power. Drive it home JK. Drive it home.

[Mattforclark]

2. We would have been better off

containing him, and doing something about actual threats to the US instead. This would also have had the side affect of allowing us to do something about the genocide, in which thousands? hundreds of thousands? millions? are currently being killed in Darfur if we wanted to.

The real question is: Are we better off with Osama Bin Laden free and with untold numbers of people being massacred in Sudan because we can't do anything about it?

Answer: resounding no.

[NewJeffCT]

4. saddam was contained

In 2001, Colin Powell, Condi Rice & Dick Cheney all said that Saddam was contained. Cheney even said it in the days following 9/11.

[Mattforclark]

15. Exactly

and we should have kept that on.

[jean]

3. John Edwards said this week - people are dying in Iraq, people are being

beheaded in Iraq and we've spent billions of dollars on this mess.

He said this in reply to bush talking about the right track wrong track numbers in Iraq being better than those in the US.

[private_ryan]

7. still you have to connect Saddam gone with the dead and $200 bill

then ask, if we're better off. Since Bush doesn't mention the cost, maybe he doesnt' care.

[kerryin2004]

18. Bush projected the war to cost 1.8 billion..

We have now surpassed it by 198 billion.. How can you trust a man that can't tell you the truth about the cost of his projects?? No wonder we have such a huge deficit..

[jean]

21. getting bush (in a televised debate) to shrug off the death toll

our troops have suffered would be excellent - as you suggested in your original post.

bush recites lots of 'words' - he hugs the loved ones of the dead, or the soldiers gave their lives to a worthy cause and we will prevail, freedom is on the march...

Getting a live, flippant reaction from him - or getting a delayed reaction, while he ponders what he should say - would be valuable.

[private_ryan]

22. that's exactly the aim of this

Saddam in jail=1050+ young dead soldiers, thousands of legs, arms, eyes etc and $200 billion lost.

Is the world better off without 1050 young US soldiers? Make it seem like it happened because Bush didn't build the coalition. This will get him of base and make a mistake, a huge one.

[saccheradi]

30. He'll just say the world is better off without Saddam...

it becomes cyclical. To break it Kerry can say: "so, you're saying it was worth 1050+ young dead soldiers, thousands of legs, arms, eyes etc and $200 billion lost to put Saddam in Jail in the place of Bin Laden? Because that is precisely what has happened."

then Kerry can deliver on those actions he will take to clean up the mess the shrub has created through going full force after the wrong guy.

[speedoo]

5. Another tactic: "which enemy would you rather we be rid of?....

Hussein, who had nothing to do with the attacks on America on 9/11, or Bin Laden who had everything to do with them?"

Of course the risk is that the coWard comes up with Bin Laden before the election, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.

[Toucano]

14. I like this a lot

but it doesn't matter if they come up with bin Laden now. Al qaeda has regrouped and is stronger than before.

Capturing bin Laden would have meant something two years ago. Now, it's just symbolic and offers no increase in world security.

[Hippo_Tron]

34. I disagree, I think it's critical to the war on terror...

If Bin Laden is on the loose he can be gathering up support and resources for future attacks on the US. He's not hiding in a cave anymore, he is out there and we aren't looking for him. I can't seem to get people to understand this.

[Gregorian]

27. It's too late to present Bin Laden. Bush gave him time to recruit.

No we are not better off. Bush gave Bin Laden three years to corral all of the terrorists he wanted. And Bush gave them a reason to do so. Now, even if he does tote out Bin Laden, it is meaningless. George let Bin Laden have his way, and get away with it.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Bin Laden would've been presented during Abu Ghreib if they'd had him

Although I think that it does matter that we catch him, it's meaningless for Bush politically at this point.

[whistle]

6. Right use 1,050+ dead Americans and the over 7,000 seriously...

...wounded Americans and the 10s of thousands of Iraqi civilians including women and children who have been killed and then ask Bush how many more casualties he is willing to commit now that Saddam is in custody.

[private_ryan]

8. "10s of thousands of Iraqi civilians"

I hate to say, but not many people care about them, and those who care, wouldn't vote for the chimp anyway.

[RhodaGrits]

10. I said something about the civilian deaths to a RW'r and he

dismissed them with "not all of them were innocent". Makes me ill.

[kerryin2004]

19. Aint that the truth..

Sometimes you got to break a few eggs to spread democracy and freedom.. Who cares that many Iraqi children have been killed over there?? I mean they're nothing like our children here.. Hell, they don't even speak the right language!

[roseBudd]

9. We are not better off because Iraq IS the new training ground

for the new generation of young terrorists.

Just like Russia's war with Afghanistan created al quaeda
September 26, 2004


THE NEW FACE OF AL QAEDA
Al Qaeda Seen as Wider Threat
The network has evolved into a looser, ideological movement that may no longer report to Bin Laden. Critics say the White House focus is misdirected.



U.S. Still a Target

U.S. and foreign intelligence and counter-terrorism officials warned that the United States remained the prime target of radical Islam.

"They have overcome the shock of the Afghanistan war and very likely they are preparing another large-scale attack, possibly on a U.S. target," the senior European counter-terrorism official said. "There are good reasons to be on alert."

*

A Changing Roster

Despite the arrests of several high-profile leaders, anti-terrorism experts believe that Al Qaeda has managed to reemerge as a lethal ideological movement. Dispersed operatives — loosely organized or acting alone — recruit and quickly train local terrorist groups for small but deadly attacks.

'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.

[JI7]

11. Bush did not do his job in making the world safer once the troops

captured Saddam. his failures such as not planning is why we have this mess. bring up how during WWII FDR and Harry Truman had a plan once the soldiers did their job in military victory.

[mourningdove92]

12. My answer to that is NO.

No we are not better off. Iraq is not better off. Iraq was the only secular state in the Middle East. The others are variations of theocracy.

No, we are not better off.

[mairceridwen]

20. turkey?

[TheDonkey]

13. Are we better off with 1040+ young Americans dead prematurely due to

an irresponisble war?

Might be too hot of a quote for Kerry to utter but could be used by surrogates.

[Cha]

16. Yeah, if the

bush lovers don't care about the thousands and thousands of Iraqis who have died under our bombs..then maybe they will Care about the over a thousand Soldiers who have died for no reason.

By the number of Yellow magnetic Ribbons in my small town in New York..they do care.

BTW, I have ordered my own Yellow Ribbon to slap right above my Kerry/Edwards A Stronger America sticker!

[farmbo]

17. Sorry George, you're not running against Saddam.You're running against me"

Saddam was and is a worthless piece of human excrement. But we should not stake the prestige of American foreign policy, or the blood of our young men and women...on some tinpot dictator who had nothing to do with the 9/11 terror attacks.

[Cha]

25. That's a good one, Farmbo!

Nice and Succinct!

Especially, this part..

"But we should not stake the prestige of American foreign policy, or the blood of our young men and women...on some tinpot dictator who had nothing to do with the 9/11 terror attacks.

[Southern Patriot]

28. Wow! That's GREAT! Needs a little work but it's superb. nfm

nfm

[skooooo]

23. America would be better off with the 1050+ still alive.

[liveoaktx]

24. We'd be better off without a whole raft of dictators in power

but if it's a question of priorities, why didn't we attack North Korea who DID threaten us? Or, if it's humanitarian issues, why aren't we in the Sudan or China? Shouldn't the US, then, quit chumming around with dictators and anti-democratic leaders to be consistent and instead, go strike them all right away?

[radfringe]

26. are we better off with Saddam?

No, but I ask - WHERE'S BIN-LADEN?

There's a time and place for war and there are priorities. Which is more of an imminent threat - a dictator that posed no immediate threat to our security and safety or a fundamentalist fanactic who has already proved he is an immediate and VERY REAL threat to our security and safety

When we contemplate war or to engage in a conflict which puts our honorable troops in danger - we must ask - is there a better way, what is the cost in terms of lives and dollars - and should we find there is no alternative except for war, we should spend the time to plan, to gather intelligence and to make sure we know what we are doing every step of the way.

Should Saddam have been removed? Yes, but we should not have blundered carelessly into a war without exhausting all other solutions and planning for such a war in an intelligent, careful and thoughtful manner. We need to also take into consideration our other priorities - such as finding and apprehending Osama Bin-laden.

Saddam, who posed no immediate threat, sits in prison. Osama Bin-Laden, who is an immediate and real threat, is still out there.

[cidliz2004]

29. Does anybody know how many people that Sadam

alledgedly murdered in Iraq?

The U.S. is racking up the deaths caused by this war quite rapidly, When will we have surpassed the Sadam murdered numbers? Within the projected forecast of our occupation?

First, ask Bush about how long he plans on U.S. troops staying in Iraq.

Second, Forecast the numbers to that point in comparison to Sadam's death squads and our Democracy bringing war fatalities.

[saccheradi]

31. The simplest response.

"So you're saying it was worth 1050+ dead americans, countless dead Innocent Iraqis, 200 billion dollars spent from an already growing deficit and the total destruction of our good name throughout the world in order to throw Saddam in jail instead of Bin Laden???"

"Where's the logic in that???"

[saccheradi]

32. yep.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. It's YOUR kids who will fight these wars, not his...

n/t

[democrat in Tallahassee]

36. Wasn't there a better way to rid ourselves of Sadam

1050 dead american soldiers, thousands of dead civilians, 200 Billion to get rid of one man?

Don't you think there was a better way to get rid of one guy????

[WilliamPitt]

37. THE BEST POSSIBLE ANSWER TO THIS ISSUE

"Only an administration as incompetent as this one can rid the world of Saddam Hussein and make the world more dangerous in the process."

- From my debate prep thread from the other day, author unremembered

[thebigidea]

38. I came up with a pretty zippy answer to that:

(delivered in Jon Stewart-as-Kerry voice)

"The question is not is the world better off without Saddam Hussein, the question is America better off without George W. Bush?"