If Kerry is asked during the Presidential debates.

[wurzel]

Sen. Kerry: Even as we now know that Saddam had no WMDs, no real nuclear capability, and was not involved in 911. Would you agree that with Saddam removed and the Iraqi people having a chance for a more democratic form of government, America is now safer. And has been worth the cost. "Yes" or "No"? How would he respond? I'm not interested in hearing "how he would have done it differently". Or he might have done it with "more help at a lesser cost". If he had to choose "Yes" or "No", which would it be? Bush has a simple answer. Seems to me Kerry is in trouble either way.

[mzmolly]

1. That question is coming. And I think part of the dilema for Kerry is that

men/women are on the ground in battle right now.

He could say, history will be the judge of this war.I don't think we'll get a yes/no from him. Though, I'd love to hear that NO.

[tridim]

2. War should never be distilled down to a simple "yes" or "no" question

Ever.

Thank you Mr. Kerry.

[wurzel]

8. In the end you have to decide. Yes or no. So Kerry has to decide.

[MichiganVote]

3. He should say,

You have asked two questions and the current administration has yet to close the third.

The answer to your first question, Would I agree that with Saddam removed we are safer? Safer from him, Saddam Hussein, yes. Safer from his supporters? No. Civil unrest continues to result in the killing and maiming of Americans and innocent Iraqi's and no plan for the peace is evident in this administration.

The answer to your second question, Has the invasion of Iraq been worth the cost? The cost is measured in sons and daughters for those who have suffered a loss and the cost is measured in billions and billions of dollars for those who have not met death within their families. The most important cost we have all sustained in America is the loss of confidence felt throughout the nation for a war waged by a president who misrepresented the true lack of threat Saddam Hussein and his government posed prior to the invasion.

The answer to your third question, embedded in the first, is whether or when the Iraqi people have a chance for a more democratic form of government? Yes, they have a chance, with me as your president.

[kwolf68]

4. Not bad

I like this quote

[wurzel]

9. That is a great answer. The best I have ever seen Please give it to Kerry

[MichiganVote]

10. I have no idea how to send it. If you do, forward it on.

[German-Lefty]

5. No - it has not been worth the cost

Imagine what we could have done at the cost of a few hundred billion and a thousand troops.

1) saved more lives in Africa from AIDS or Genocide
2) developed alternative fuels to decrease our dependence on oil
3) captured Bin Laden
4) secured all that radioactive waste in Russia's backyard just waiting on a terrorist with a shovel.

Is America now safer?
BushCo can't make up thier mind. The seem to raise the terror threat level and try to scare the crap out of people. At the same time they want to tell us how we're all safe now.

[malachibk]

6. The answer Kerry should give is very simple...

A: Given all that we now know about Iraq and more importantly, all that we now know about our current President, the answer is a definitive 'No'. Giving *President Bush* that go-ahead was a mistake.

(This way, the door is still open for all that "If I had the power of the rsolution, I would have exhausted all other options..." stuff AND he gets to slam President Bush for his ineptitude and rush to war.)

[wurzel]

7. I agree, but this is how I would put it.

The way I would answer this is "NO". America would have been far safer had we stayed the course in Afghanistan, and leaving Saddam boxed in the way he was. Knowing what I know today I would not have given Bush authority for war in Iraq. However, at the time, I believed the Administration about the threat that Saddam posed. My mistake was not my vote. My mistake was believing the word of a president who misled the country in a reckless way.