Howard Dean defended re not-safer-because-Saddam-captured remark LTTE WP

[Eric J in MN]

Today's Washington Post, Letter to the Editor

In his Jan. 7 op-ed piece "Dean: Dominator or Detonator," David S. Broder amplified the perception that Howard Dean is a loose cannon.

As Mr. Broder said, perhaps the most notorious of Mr. Dean's recent so-called gaffes was his declaration that Saddam Hussein's capture left America "no safer."

However, I'm unable to locate the cause of outrage and controversy in this simple statement. No evidence has been found that Hussein was an imminent threat. See the front-page article of the same day, "Iraq's Arsenal Was Only on Paper."

But what troubles me most about Mr. Broder's column is his decision to analyze Mr. Dean's remark solely in terms of its tactfulness instead of its substance.

This type of journalism encourages candidates to run campaigns that are based on poll-tested catch phrases.

Isn't one responsibility of the press to see through political spin and draw the public's attention to the substance of what the politicians are saying?

JONAS BROWN

Arlington

[rfranklin]

1. Excellent!

Succint and devasstating, ie. look in your own newspaper, Turkeys!

[auntpattywatty]

2. How many soldiers have died since saddam was captured?

[markus]

4. If someone has that stat, it would be helpful

I think it would make a great flyer or add.

"Think we're safer since Saddam's capture? Who don't you ask Pfc. Bobby Smith if he fells any safer?

You can't.

He was killed by a roadside bomb in Somewheresville, Iraq N days after Saddam's capture."

[coloradodem2005]

3. We are not safer.

I know that Dean has said some things that he should not have said. But his statement is not a gaffe, it is reality, plain and simple. The perpetual high terror alert should prove that. Nothing has changed in Iraq. He should not have to defend or retract this statement.