Nobody said that Saddam's capture will stop ALL Al Qaeda attacks on the US. But no objective reasonable person can say that his arrest hasn't made Americans safer. Apart from logic, events that occurred afterwards prove my point: Many terrorists were arrested thanks to information found on Saddam, and a lot of Iraqis have come forward since his capture to help with the capture of other terrorists, specifically because they were now less afraid to do so. They at least knew that it's now official: Saddam mathematically can no longer be expected to come back to power.
The only way Dean and the liberals who worship him can claim that America hasn't been made safer by the capture of Hussein is to contend that you stop being a part of America once you leave our shores. Otherwise, how else can Dean contend that the American troops who are serving in Iraq have not been made safer by the capture of Hussein. Simply put, every single Baathist who is captured in Iraq makes the American military and, by extension, America safer.
When you think about it, Howard Dean's statement about Hussein is really quite scary because the statement has unintentionally exposed Dean's philosophy on foreign policy which is that if you are not on American soil, you are on your own as far as Dean is concerned.
"Saddam mathematically can no longer be expected to come back to power."
Im curious. Hypothetically speaking, what would be the Mathematical equasion that would allow Saddam to return to power?
posted on 01/01/2004 7:59:58 AM PST
(If I stay on topic for more than 2 posts something is wrong. Alert the authorities.)
"Nobody said that Saddam's capture will stop ALL...."
Many of us agree, but the point here is that instead of making the arguement and refuting the post somebody hit the abuse button and convinced a MOD to pull the post.
The MODs are pretty quick on the trigger.
posted on 01/01/2004 10:04:30 AM PST
by SC Swamp Fox
(Aim small, miss small.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson