Seymour Hersh on NBC 'Today' show

[krkaufman]

Couric: "Would you concede, though, Sy, that the world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein?"

Katie Couric is an unadulterated moron.

[baby_bear]

1. That question is so common and so ridiculous

I hear it constantly it seems, and it never has any notion of "At what price?" along with it. It implies that the world is better off without Saddam regardless of what it cost. Why doesn't someone turn it back on the questioner: at the cost of 1,000 US troops' lives? At the cost of say, your son or daughter?

Have these people no sense of moral relativity, or even practical relativity?

s_m

[Joanne98]

7. NO! I want Saddam Hussein back by gawd.............

somebody bust that man out of prison and give him his palances back.
The world WAS alot safer then. Iraq was alot safer. How many bombs are going off in Bagdad today Katie?

[krkaufman]

13. And we'll keep hearing this ridiculous answer..

... until the Dems start standing-up and pointing out that, NO!, the world is NOT now a safer place with Saddam Hussein removed from power -- because of the incompetent manner in which his removal was executed by the Bush Administration.

Quite to the contrary, the world is an objectively more dangerous place because the Bush Administration has botched the war against Al Qaeda and global terrorism -- both by failing to pursue Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden after a quick initial success in Afghanistan, and through his hapless rush to war in Iraq.

The world *may* eventually become a safer place with Saddam removed from power, but the framing of the question excludes other possible paths -- perhaps considerably less bloody -- to a Saddam-less Iraq.

[TahitiNut]

27. ... and Max Cleland doesn't have flat feet or ingrown toenails, either.

The propaganda value of that question relies on ignoring the cost ... cost in lives, treasure, and liberties. And not just from a myopic American perspective, either.

[Nordic]

28. NICE RESPONSE!!!!

dude, forward that to Kerry!

[Judi Lynn]

2. Oh, God! How does she find her way to work every day?

Jeezus H. Swearwords.

That's the stock charge made by every dimwitted savage in the country. (Drooling demand): "Well, isn't the world safer without Saddam Hussein?"

Because they claim he tortured and killed people, we are morally correct in slaughtering the citizens of Iraq, destroying lives, minds, bodies, spirits which will leave the country in grief for 100 years. Grandchildren, great grandchildren will curse our memory.

Filthy, stupid cretins.

[mhr]

3. My Response Would Be - Katie, Safer How?

Force these people to define what they mean. Put them on the defensive to make their question clear and unambiguous.

[yowzayowzayowza]

4. Zactly....

NEVER surrender the frame of your response to that of the query.

[fugue]

5. How about this response?

"On the whole, no. The little bit safer the world is without Saddam Hussein is entirely overwhelmed by the great deal less safe it is with the increased instability in the Persian Gulf and with terrorism worldwide."

[elehhhhna]

6. Her burning question, was, of course...

"Why release it NOW?" Hello? Why NOT now? I thought Reeps loved Capitalism.

[rooboy]

8. Hey Katie, shoot a 'Today Show' on location in Mosul...

and answer the question yourself, bitch.

[krkaufman]

12. Excellent response...!

[Englander]

9. Did Sy reply by saying "go cheney yerself?"..

n/t

[Morning Dew]

10. I'd concede that the world would be a safer place without .. .. ..

Shrub at the helm.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

11. When the US govt. and CIA stop their terrorism, we'll all be safer, Katie.

That's what I'd tell her.

[porkrind]

18. Exactly

thanks for saying it.

[Eloriel]

14. So, how DID he respond? n/t

[calimary]

21. Yes - what did he say?

How did he handle that question?

[umtalal]

15. broken record without much thought. the woman has no original thought.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

16. The answer is a resounding "No"

During World War II, the United States was allied with the Soviet Union, even though we practiced diametrically opposed forms of government and would go on to engage in a Cold War for nearly half a century. At the time, however, any nation that would take up arms against Nazi Germany was considered an ally.

In the war on terror, Saddam was our ally. The secular government of Saddam Hussein was in a life-and-death struggle with Islamic fundamentalism. There were no terrorist cells operating in Iraq, because Saddam's secret police would smoke them out and they would be summarily executed. In terms of terrorist activity, that portion of Iraq under Saddam's direct control was arguably the safest place on Earth.

Toppling Saddam Hussein removed what could only be described as a "marginal threat" to the United States and replaced it with a much larger threat in terms of the safe haven that Iraq now provides for terrorists. There's no question that a Saddam Hussein in power, motivated by the threat of fundamentalist insurgents, could have been turned into a valuable asset in the war on terrorism.

Only in the ham-handed, jingoistic world of the Bush Administration could the destablization of Iraq be considered a foreign policy victory.

[Jacobin]

17. This core geo-politcal truth has been so

amazingly undone by the neo-cons and Likkudites that it makes me cringe. How anyone could continue to spout the foolishness spouted by Couric, Lieberman, Bush*, et al is simply a denial of reality.

The world was a MUCH safer place with Saddam in power for the reasons you so cogently stated.

[krkaufman]

20. Let me pile on Jacobin's agreement with my own.

Wholly agree that suggestions that Saddam would cooperate with Islamic fundamentalists is bunk. Yes, Saddam rewarded terrorist attacks against Israel, but that didn't make him an Al Qaeda henchman.

[Neecy]

19. this is Blitzer's favorite riposte

Whenever anyone offers even the mildest criticism of the Iraq debacle, Blizter leans forward, teeth bared like a rat, and barks, "But isn't Iraq BETTER OFF without Saddam?"

Never mentions the slaughtered civilians, or the constant violence that's claiming more innocent lives every day, or the dead and maimed Americans.

Must be KKKarl's talking point - all the media whores have taken it up.

[Nordic]

30. Fine. It's time to start saying "NO!" and explaining why

here's one reason why:

[krkaufman]

22. Ok, after the Lauer call...

... I felt the need to call 'Today' today about Katie's framing of her Hersh question.

Basically just told the operator that (1) the framing Katie used is right-wing, giving one the impression that Seymour Hersh is the lone holdout unwilling to agree that the world is a safer place with Saddam out of power; and (2) the premise that the world is safer with Saddam out is nonsense, and that any reading of newspapers and Internet materials -- and the 9/11 report! -- clearly shows that the world is a MUCH more dangerous and chaotic place.

[oldtime dfl_er]

23. Katie got her talking points

she must have called the Karl Rove hotline before interviewing Sy.

[not systems]

24. Great interview with Hersh on Democracy Now today.

Check it out.

[Hello_Kitty]

25. Later in the show, just to prove it even further....

She features a fashion segment where 6 "ordinary" women were shown pictures of $4000 designer outfits and assigned the task of finding "bargains" for $1000. The women completed their tasks and modeled the "cheap" outfits while Katie and 2 anorexic twit fashionistas gushed over how frugal they were. Are they kidding? I guess in the world of overpaid TV pseudo-journalists a thousand bucks for one stinking outfit is a bargain. It's an insult to everyone who struggles to get by in a shitty economy. "Look ladies, see what your entire month's unemployment benefits will buy you at Barney's!" She is indeed a moron.

[dansolo]

26. I wouldn't concede that point

The current instability in Iraq, which is a direct result of our actions to get rid of Saddam, has made the world less safe.

[Nordic]

29. the world is NOT a safer place without Saddam

you'd think they'd start figuring that out pretty soon.

[Generic Other]

31. Would you concede, Katie that the poor would be better off emptying your

bank accounts and shooting your children in a revolution?

You are a twit.