here's the one question Kerry's gonna have to deal with in debates:

[Nordic]

"Isn't the world better off with Saddam Hussein out of power"?

Personally, I feel the world was safer with Saddam in power. Thousands upon thousands of people would be alive today if we had simply kept him contained as we were doing.

Kerry unfortunately is on record as saying otherwise.

Does anyone know how Kerry will answer this?

I know we're all anxious to see Kerry beat the crap out of Bush in the debates, but you know Bush will have tricks up his sleeve such as this that will play with the 50% of the Americans who are below average.

[hlthe2b]

1. I'd say that that remains to be seen.....

[michigandem2]

9. ditto...

we haven't seen the ramifications of what its like wihtout saddam hussein...we have created FAR worse i am afraid...and only time will tell if the world is safer...and in my humble opinion ...it is anything but...he made it worse...

[shockingelk]

16. These facts are indisputable

In and of itself, Hussein being out of power is good for Iraqis, but Iraq is a country at war with itself due to missteps of the current administration. And America is no safer because of it and al Qaeda's strength has increased because of it.

[DoBotherMe]

2. Would the world be better off with

* out of power? I think if Kerry is asked that question he should make the questioner qualify the question: How was the WORLD worse off with Saddam in power?

[cheshire]

3. That doesn't change the fact that Iraq was wrong. None issue. He will

have a great answer. Will * bring it up as it will lead to ?'s about his stupid reason for going to Iraq in the first place. Law 101

[DBtv]

4. He wasn't "in power" before the invasion.

He was a completely impotent figurehead presiding over a defenseless country ravaged by a decade of "sanctions".

[JPJones]

5. Response

Is the world better off with over 1000 dead American soldiers, thousands of injured American soldiers, tens of thousands dead Iraqi civilans, anarchy in many parts of Iraq, and a US occupation of a predominantly Muslim country?

[mhr]

6. The Clarification Question IS - Better Off How? Safer How?

Force the questioner to be specific so that you do not have to answer a totally open ended question.

[Nordic]

10. that's good. I like that.

turn the question back on the questioner.

But is that how it will work? You know Bush is gonna call him on this and quote him from when they captured Saddam and Kerry said it was such a great thing.

[deutsey]

7. I suppose he can say that's one of the reasons why he voted for IWR

and then he could launch into how Bush betrayed the agreement and went on to fuck up everything.

I didn't like his IWR vote, but I'd love to see him pummel Bush with something like that in a debate.

[Nordic]

12. that's pretty good, too

you guys are sharp. :)

[noahmijo]

8. Just bring up how the new government is an Islamic Republic now

That's how I would answer it.

Great George you got rid of an oppressive regime and have now put in an Islamic government which is garunteed to become a Saudi Arabian cousin. Then to boot you killed off 1,000 soldiers, wounded over 7,000, have nearly 100,000+ over there away from their familes for this to happen, plus the innocent Iraqis killed for this happen.

Sharia Law Back In Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A21321-2004Jan15¬Found=true

Great job asshole, next question please.

[July]

11. Thanks to DUer gulliver:

"It's a five-hundred-dollar ice cream cone." (sweet-tasting, but too expensive in lives, treasure, alliances, etc.)

Other answers:

Iraqis may be better off (debatable, despite the wretchedness of Saddam), but given the price (any way you want to measure it), are WE?

So far, the only people ahead in this war are the Halliburtons and other profiteers with sweetheart deals from their cronies.

[democrat_patriot]

13. Read the Imus transcript from this morning.

He says (paraphrasing) Saddam was bad - no one doubts that. But we're not safer now - quotes stats on terrorist attacks, numbers of soldiers dying wounded increasing.

Bu*sh went to war in the wrong way - no allies, stopped inspections prematurely, Kerry voted to 'authorize war as a last resort', Bush took it and did an endaround the UN....

He'll be fine. I hope he gets it, he need to clarify some things during the debates - the media isn't going to give him any time to do so.

[AuntPatsy]

14. If that question is asked than the whole debate is nothing more

than a scripted version from freeperville, did I say that right?

A very easy answer would be and in a loud clear voice "Ask this of the dead souls of the thousands of dead Iraqs as well as the over thousand and climbing dead US soliders.." And to the literally thousands upon thousands of Iraqs now out of jobs, without food or electricity or utilities needed for lifes simplest of chores, you know, showering, bathroom needs etc...And ask the now new terrorists that have sprung up like a bad leak all over the world if it was easier to gather up reqruits since Saddam was ousted...fair enough answers to a stupid question..

Next question?

And have the pictures of this much heraled war blown up so that the cameras will have no choice but to zoom in..

[JI7]

15. we are not safer because Bush did not do his job to do everything

to make america safer. it has nothing to do with saddam.

[Cocoa]

17. Kerry must mention the cost

both to us and to the Iraqis.

What good does it do to get rid of Saddam, if we end up having to slaughter thousands of Shiites just like Saddam did?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. However Kerry answers, he will have to connect emotionally with viewers

The debates are about getting the viewers feeling comfortable with the candidate. Bush likes to be a comfortable, folksy, masterdebater who just like "regular folks" can't pronounce "nuclear".

Debating points count, but not as much as the emotional connection.

Kerry should not get bogged down on facts, leaving that up to the spin-meisters who can afterward cite the relevant details.

His recent language in speeches today about Bush being the "excuse president" and just wrong and confusing stubbornness for steadfastness, these phrases are spot on.

[DrFunkenstein]

19. Ask The Audience: Are We Better Off For Rushing To War?

Are we better off for having no plan for the peace?

Are we better off pulling our resources from Afghanistan?

Are we winning the hearts and minds of the Arab world, a world extremely opposed to Saddam Hussein?

--------------

Keep it simple, and answer YOUR questions - not BUSH's, Kerry!!!!

[nostamj]

20. answer:

The world is clearly not safer.

Terrorist attacks have escalated worldwide since the invasion of Iraq and despite the unfounded claims of your administration, membership in terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, have increased.

Iraq *might* have been safer with the removal of Hussein but only if the US had a coherent policy for post-occupation Iraq. The increasing violence and loss of life for both our soldiers and Iraqi citizens proves that Iraq is certainly not safer since Saddam's capture.

It has been proven that at the time of your unilateral invasion Hussein had no capabilities to attack his neighbors much less the United States.

Saddam was a bad and, prior to the 1st Gulf War, dangerous man. But the removal of his regime without a plan to manage post-invasion Iraq has fatally destablized Iraq, the Middle East and the entire world.

The answer, beyond a doubt, is NO.