I think there is a little semantic difficulty on the words ``safe'' and ``safer.'' I would not say that Iraq is safe. I would not say crossing Pennsylvania Avenue in rush hour is safe. The question is, Is it safer with Mr. Saddam Hussein in a cell? Or is it less safe with him in one of his palaces plotting to amputate limbs from some of his people or to bury Kurds alive like he has done? The world is a safer place with him in a cell because Mohmmar Qaddafi watched that and went to school on that. He decided to put his cards down and give up his nuclear pretensions.
Henry Hyde: “I think there is a little semantic difficulty on the words ``safe'' and ``safer.'' I would not say that Iraq is safe. I…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the safety implications of Saddam Hussein's imprisonment.
Share
More from Henry Hyde
On May 11, 2006, I was absent for the following procedural votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: Rollcall No. 137, on motion to adjourn, ``nay''; Rollcall No. 138, on motion to adjourn, ``nay.'' ____________________
If I may reclaim my time, I want to say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), this is a marvelous amendment. The spirit in which it is offered is exemplary, and it is a very difficult thing to oppose it. But I see a problem with it…
This is a killer amendment. If you vote for it, you vote to kill this entire initiative, because this imposes limits on India's nuclear weapons program, but India already possesses nuclear weapons and is extremely unlikely to give them up…
An unrelenting Government assault on property rights, fueled by a dangerous and emotional vigilante mentality that sanctions shredding the U.S. Constitution into meaningless confetti.





