Charles Gibson would never select this question to be put to candidate Kerry, so I will put it in play here for the Kerry supporters.
“Senator Kerry, you have said, in so many words, that the war with Iraq was unjustified, being that Saddam Hussein did not have the purported weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States and there was no link between Iraq and 9/11, would you release Saddam Hussein from custody?”
Cite for anyone in the entire world who thinks that Saddam Hussein should be charged with any of the things you list?
Too easy. The man is clearly a war criminal by dint of the things he did even before Gulf War I, so there would be no reason whatsoever for releasing him.
Not a very solid question.
I ask the OP whether Milosevic be released due to his non-involvement with 9/11?
I opposed the war, but now Hussein is in custody, try him and sentence him for his crimes against humanity.
Indeed, if I were Kerry and asked this question I would reply “Are you a dumbass or something?”
“NO!”
Next question.
[No wonder Gibson didn’t pick it…It is a stupid question. I mean, does the fact that we haven’t invaded North Korea mean that President Bush likes the North Korean regime. All because you think a regime is led by a dangerous tyrant does not mean that you think the costs of deposing that tyrant are worth the gain, a lesson that we seem to be discovering the hard way at the moment. However, it certainly does not follow that if you (as Kerry) have reached that conclusion but the President has not that you then you want to still want to incur all the costs but want to unilaterally give up the benefits. That is just stupid.
By the way, your OP does raise one interesting point, which is why the U.S. is not trying Saddam themselves. There might be many reasons but the most obvious one is in fact that I don’t think we have anything to try him for…unless we can come up with better evidence that he was behind that bungled assassination attempt on G. Bush I. However, he can surely be tried for lots of crimes by the Iraqis themselves or by the world. An unfortunate fact, however, is that the U.S. was actively supporting him during the time when many of those crimes occurred.]
Indeed, should be a hugely entertaining trial.
“The defence calls Mr Donald Rumsfeld…”
“Objection!”
“Overruled.”
Speaking of dumbasses.
Good comeback…
And an equally stupid answer. Because a President doesn’t like a country’s regime, then it’s okay to invade, then arrest and incarcerate that country’s leader?
“Weh-hell, your honor, I just had no idea when I shook his hand that he’d turn into such a bad, bad mayan!”
Hole seems to be getting bigger. Stop digging now.
But, according to John Kerry’s worldview, wouldn’t the arrest and incarceration of a country’s leader require the passing of a “global test”?
Not a very thoughtful answer.
He’s already been arrested. Do keep up.
I don’t think Kerry would find the positions incompatible that our rush to war was wrong…but that Saddam is still a jusitifiable accused criminal (of crimes against humanity). Also, I believe Iraq has him in captivity. Why would Kerry demand that a sovereign country would release a guy who committed crimes in their country, against their citizens? I guess I don’t get the connection between your two thoughts above. Can you explain more?
Are you thinking of rules of criminal procedure, or something? How would those even apply?
Razorsharp - you’re not living up to your name. Let it go. Everyone consistently agrees that Saddam was a tyrant and dictator and had violated a variety of laws. Given the fact of his capture, he should be held.
That is a completely different issue compared to “was he involved in 9/11.”
Get over it.
Oh, do please tell us what you think John Kerry’s worldview is.
Excellent point. And just to carve a finer point on it, Kerry would be unable to release Saddam from custody, as he is not in our custody to begin with.
By George, you have a point! It ISN’T okay to invade a country and arrest and incarcerate that country’s leader because the President doesn’t like a regime.
If I was John Kerry, I would answer the OP as follows: “There are many legitimate causes to hold Saddam Hussein for trial, regardless that he had no weapons of WMD and had no connection whatsoever to 9/11.”
Razorsharp
[Moderator Hat ON]
Razorsharp, you know the rules. Take it to the Pit; this has no place here.
[Moderator Hat OFF]