Has Saddam's Capture made the world a Safer Place?

No.

And, frankly, I doubt many of you think it has. Saddam's been reduced to hiding for months now. Whatever WMD's he may have once had, he doesn't have now. Nor does he have much to offer terrorists, assuming he ever really considered working with them to stick it to the United States.

I'm not denying that Saddam was a bad man, and that capturing him precludes any possibility of a return to power. So in that sense, you could say the world is a teeny bit safer. But the amount is negligible.

There was a MSNBC poll the other day; when I looked at it it was 60 percent towards this conclusion, with 40 percent or there abouts feeling that we were safer. And of course there's a very serious terrorist warning about Italy that was just released.

Potential Democratic Candidate for President Howard Dean apparently agrees with this analysis. After Saddam was captured, he stated that the capture of Saddam had not made the world a safer place.

And for that the conservative media has declared that he has gone off the deep end.

No doubt Dean would be happier if Saddam were still on the loose, since he, and indeed many in the Democratic Party, had pointed to the inability to capture either Saddam or Osama bin Laden as one of President Bush's major failures in the war on terrorism. But to say that Americans are no safer with Saddam behind bars is just plain strange. - Linda Chavez

Shifting to foreign policy, Dean said, "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." Perhaps so, perhaps not, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that Saddam's capture will be demoralizing to his terrorist followers and supporters who happen to be waging war against American soldiers. Come on, Howard, can't you express a little jubilation about that? - David Limbaugh (Of course those who read the speech or heard it, know that Dean did express happiness that Saddam was captured.

And there will undoubtedly be other examples.