White House slams Howard Dean's comments on Iraq

Trys to slam is more like it.

:bounce:

we could carpet bomb Iraq but we still could not say we would win.... We could have had the same result if a sniper killed Sadaam... but no * had to go all out for his oil buddies

and please no vauge answers, like when the Iraqiis are able to assume full responsiblity that means nothing

Is there a bench mark?

Is there a standard?

Whose definition of winning?

;-)

Why do you hate America?

Sarcasm "smilie" deemed unneccessary...

They like the word winning. No questions asked please. That's the problem, so many don't think. They see news flashes and say whoo rah. Works for them. We are surrounded by that kind of mentality. Our education system needs some work. Teach kids to think, ponder what they are being told. No wonder the repubs want intelligent design in the schools, teaches them Not to think, hell, the universe was made for them. Bush + prayers = winning.

to them. IMHO anyway.

I am so sick of that talking point! The message to the troops is not debating this war and giving them everything they need. Who sent these troops in Iraq with not enough armer it was not Dean.

See how they try to diffuse their own culpability in this mess. Where is their effort to support the troops... just how do they support them? Enough with the abstract rhetoric. Let's see objectivity.

so you can get killed by an IED, all for the "good" of the folks back home.

No one needs to tell them what they already know.

I know some might want revenge on a fellow solider but I doubt any want to stay to "win". Win what?

How many times have we heard a soldier make that comment. How many say that they are getting close to winning the hearts and minds of the locals?

And, they don't want to hear they are over there for nothing. You can't put your life on the line without a cause. They appear to be running out of causes. They need our help, get a plan, get the world involved, use diplomacy, guns won't win this.

They've brainwashed everyone into thinking we're fighting a war. We're not... we're using our enormous military resources to fight street thugs... We are not facing an army, we are not fighting the people of Iraq, we are fighting thugs. And.. we're spending billions each month to do that. This is the most fucked up military operation I've every witnessed.

Dean was right. It's for the Iraqis to "win", just as you don't send our troops in to fight violent gangs in America.. it's for the police to do.

Typical bullshit.. skewer Dean for telling the truth.

We are the occupying power in Iraq. Iraq is a relatively small country with only 25 million people. There is no reason that for $1 bil per week we can not provided basic services and maintain law and order. The only reason we are not is because George Bush doesn't want to. What Bush is doing to Iraq instead is madness.

We're going to stay in Iraq until infinity. Therefore, the insurgents have plenty of time to infiltrate the Iraqi troops which will be working with U.S. troops, and they can plan deadlier, more sophisticated attacks. Osama supposedly planned the WTC attacks for 5 years before implementing it. And now the latest news is we will be in Iraq for at least 10, possibly 25 years. Does bush think the insurgents aren't paying attention to this?

That's the message bush is sending. "You have plenty of time to craft your plans to kill as many of us as possible."

It has worked so far. Bigger explosions, newer and better tactics. Our secured compounds for the elite are the targets now. Bush says we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here, god save us from this mentality.

Dean got it right when he said we should not go into Iraq. Why did Dean get such a big following before the "know it alls from both parties" put him in their bulls eye to take down? He was right then and he is right now. I believe more than 50% of the U.S. also believe this. We need to keep beating the drum, the dummies will get it after awhile.

And I put that word in quotes because it's ridiculous how people refuse to accept the truth in what he is saying.

Remember the brouhaha when he said the world might not be safer off without Saddam? OMG. And yet what have we discovered? Howard Dean was right!

NASHUA, N.H., Aug. 30 - President Bush, in an interview broadcast on Monday, said he did not think America could win the war on terror but that it could make terrorism less acceptable around the world, a departure from his previous optimistic statements that the United States would eventually prevail.

In the interview with Matt Lauer of the NBC News program "Today," conducted on Saturday but shown on the opening day of the Republican National Convention, Mr. Bush was asked if the United States could win the war against terrorism, which he has made the focus of his administration and the central thrust of his re-election campaign.

"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush replied. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/politics/campaign/31bush.html?ex=1251691200&en=b257721394890931&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

via DNC site

The talking point was that early withdrawal from Vietnam could result in (Horrors!) "Peace without honor". Of course no one could really define peace or honor.

So thirty five years later, "...we are on the verge of historic accomplishments" and no one can really define what those "historic accomplishments" might be.

"...when we are on the verge of historic accomplishments".

McLoser is right: we are on the verge of historic accomplishments. They're just not the kind he can be proud of.

Before you all start hammering me about trying to supress the truth, please understand that is not what I am advocating. But I am sick and tired of leading Democrats running their mouths before their brains are engaged. It's as if they have "periosole" desease. Open mouth, insert foot.

There are ways that you can say what Howard Dean is saying, and what John Kerry is saying, without stupidly giving the right-wing noise machine a perfect 10 second sound-bite to beat the Democratic Party over the head with.

I'm not saying that we don't speak the truth, but could someone please tell me what would be wrong if Howard Dean had said this instead; "we won't win this war if we stay on the course this president is taking. The president went in without a plan for the peace, without proper equipment, and without an exit strategy, and our brave troops are paying the price for his folly right now. The only way the American people can win is for us to give the Iraqi's their country back and let them establish their own government."

or,

"I think when you talk about winning in Iraq, it's not as if there is going to be some great surrender signing, or winning in the traditional sense. That's a stupid 'black and white' analysis that this president has tried to sell the American people from day one. We win in Iraq when our troops are home, and our politicians stop lying to them and the American people".

Just a thought, but we all can speak the truth without giving the wing-nuts amunition to use against the Democratic Party. By not choosing his words more carefully, the debate has now become about "what he said", not the substance of his "argument". And that's tragic.

In a sexist way, let me give you an example.

If my wife asks me; "Does this make me look fat"

There are several "truthful" ways that I can answer that question, but not all of them are the best way.

No matter how a dem phrases the question or comment the repubs will have a slam on it. So what, it gets out there for people to ponder. When the repubs say that these comments are hurting our troops, well, the truth hurts. We need some truth. I write some pretty dumb stuff on this site that I later realise it could have been framed much better. Dean speaks what he thinks and the media doesn't include the entire context. Remember when Dean said we were no safer after Saddam was captured, how true. Truth shall make you free, let's hope.

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/12/02/general_tommy_franks_wont_back_up_hannitys_iraq_fantasy.php

Disregarding Hannity's prompt, Franks answered that the big debate is whether comments like Murtha's hurt morale - then he added that they don't.

Hannity didn't want to take no for an answer. "Is it undermining of the troops, does it hurt morale, General, when you hear leading Democrats repeatedly say, 'Our president lied to put them in the position that they're in,' in harm's way, that he hyped, that he misled purposely. When leaders of our country, leaders of the opposition party say that - you're saying that that doesn't have an affect on the troops?"

Franks didn't buy it. He said our troops "understand the political process in this country." Then, in what seemed like another tacit nod to war critics, he added that "finding a popular war is a very difficult thing to do." Comment: It's striking that Franks condones Murtha's criticism yet blames the media for damaging Bush's reputation.

that salivate and lick at the testacles of Rush and Hannity and the rest of the hate meisters. Dean could announce the cure for cancer tomorrow, and they would complain that he was undermining the oncologist of the world.

But it hurts with the "mushy middle". It hurts with those people who are not idealogues. It hurts with people that love everything socially about the Democratic Party ideals, but get squeamish about whether or not Democrats would commit military power to protect our country.

You and I probably both write some dumb stuff that could have been phrased better, but neither you nor I are the chairman of the Democratic Party, or a prominent Senator. We say something stupid, and people think; "damn, that maxrandb guy is pretty stupid". Howard Dean says something and people say; "jeesh, maybe the Democrats really don't support the troops", "maybe they won't be the best party to protect our country"

Again, because of the "words" he chose, we are debating "what he said", not the "argument" he made. Can't you see that??

I was watching Face the Nation when Kerry said it and I winced when he used the word "terrorize". I knew that THEY would be all over it started the next day if not sooner. I happened to be running an errand at noon yesterday and turned on Rush (I had sworn off hate radio for several months this was my first time back) yep sure enough Rush went on and on about it "Is it time to stop pretending they are patriots?" and on and on.

Maybe I am too conditioned to expecting the RW spin on things (thus the giving up on Hate Radio which has helped) but this and the Dean quote are just careless and lazy. Hey but then maybe Dean will be the Dems one man talk radio army going out and saying what the elected can't or won't say. What does he have to worry about? He is elected within the party he can do any damned thing he wants to.

Will this open up the debate and make W's pie in the sky dream talk sound just like that to people? I don't know but Kerry and Dean just provided two staples of RW radio for years to come on back to back days. This is Chappaquiddick and Chinese missile technology level stuff to THEM.

silly peoples

Plan for victory? Is this the new catch phrase????