How do we deal with lies that aren't really lies

[Doctor_J]

or at least can't be disproven? Like, "The world is a safer place with Saddam in custody". Anyone with a brain knows this is untrue, but it's not something that can actually be proved false (like "the vast majority of my tax cut goes to the people on the bottom" can). How do our strategists deal with this type of near-lie?

[ScreamingMeemie]

1. Disproven when weeks after his capture the threat level went

back up to orange...and the planes that were grounded just today. :hi:

[Gman]

2. Do not fall into that trap!!

The world being a safer place is a total non-issue because the sanctions were working and Sadaam was no danger to anyone. He had no WMD's and his army was a shell of what it was in 1991. His army was getting pounded daily by the US/UK patrols in the no-fly zones. The world is no safer now than it was before we invaded Iraq.

The "world is a safer place" argument is designed to take the focus off of the fact that they lied about WMD's. Its a distraction that has no basis in fact because Sadaam was contained and was no threat to anyone.

The bottom line proof is that we know 1) there was no connection between Iraq and al-queda and 2) Sadaam had no WMD's. So this is completely false.

[Straight Shooter]

3. The people with a brain aren't in charge

By the time the truth emerges, they forget there was ever a lie.

It was always this way, it always will be. Such is human nature.

[EllieDem]

6. <Ahem> Sorry but the world is a safer place

without Saddam. You may be against the war if you want - but saying the world isn't safer is just plain naive and shows ignorance about world history and affairs. If you agree with this particular view of Deans (which I think cost him Iowa & New Hampshire) then you are totally disagreeing with MOST of the democrat party who if pressed would admit that of course the world is safer. (including the U.S). People like Biden, etc. You can be AGAINST the war, but still come to the natural conclusion that a world without Saddam is safer. Period. It just is.

By the way if we catch Osama, we will still not be out of danger. We will still have orange alert days when we catch him. So saying an orange alert after Saddams capture means "hey we're not safer" makes no sense.

[Pax Argent]

8. A world without Saddam is safer?

The following might disagree:

- 15,000 or so dead Iraqi military personnel
- Several thousand dead Iraqi civilians
- 520+ KIA GI's
- Several thousand wounded GI's
- 80 dead and 200+ wounded Kurds this past weekend
- who knows how many killed (to be killed) by Al Queda and Iraqi resistance
- the rest of the world who are now concerned about American rashness and unpredictability

......and all of those who might well be killed if the predictions of civil war in Iraq come true.

While Saddam was a threat to the stability of that region, he was not an imminent threat to the US. Removing him from power was a good thing. Removing him without a viable plan for replacing him while pissing off the rest of the world by initiating a unilateral war and running the US into several hundred BILLION dollars worth of debt in sweetheart contracts to favorite corporations was, demonstrably, a very bad thing.

At best I would have to take the position that it MIGHT be a safer world in the long run without Saddam, but at best the jury is definitely still out.

[Doctor_J]

10. don't even know about that

I think Saddam has been completely limp for quite awhile. He MAY have been somewhat of a threat to the Iraqis, but his weapons barely reached to his own borders. I certainly am not convinced that "the world" is safer now that he's in custody.

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. It makes a lot of sense to me...and it was ridiculous I might add

coming so soon after his capture. Getting the bad guy doesn't insure security this time. We blew it...Big Time.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

11. "It just is."

Hard to beat THAT argument!

Sigh...

[Bucky]

12. The Arab world is safer. Dean said the USA isn't safer. And he's right

Dean's comment was about the American people not being any safer. The world is safer if you're Kuwaiti or a Kurd dissident, not counting the Kurds who have been murdered by Baathist insurgents since we blew into town.

Oh, and if the Baathists were so dangerous before, then how is it we're safer now that they're starting to team up with al-Qaeda? The double bombing in northern Iraq the other day is almost certainly al-Qaeda's work. They're getting stronger and have thousands more supporters due to our invasion of the Iraq oil fields.

So if anything, we're at a greater risk of terrorist attack than before. Mr Bush threw kerosene on the fire; things are bound to get worse.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

4. another approach

would be to respond to the "safer without Saddam" approach by saying "Then you agree the U.S. made the world more dangerous by supporting Saddam?"

[grisvador]

5. Aristotle

The heart of Aristotle's logic is the syllogism, the classic example of which is as follows: All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Do not accept anything anybody says unless there is some evidence of deductive reasoning.

[kentuck]

7. Keep it an open question....

As in "I'm not yet convinced that the world is a safer place". Because it cannot be proven otherwise, either.