The 'Iraq tried to negotiate to avoid war' story is bad news for Dean

Why?- because it proves the value of a hawkish stance, and justifies a 'YES' vote on IWR.
Inspectors would not have been in the country w/o it, and many good things could have come from just the threat of force hanging over Saddam. Kerry in fact, has said this. Congress gave Bush the gun, and it was up to Bush whether to pull the trigger or not. 'Threat of war' and actual war are entirely different things.

I don't see where this supports Dean's hypothetical 'NO' vote, and it begs the question Kerry asked Dean in Detroit- 'What would Dean do about Iraq?' (before a war, not after). This is one of the many things Dean will have to face in a general election vs. Bush- What would a President Dean do about Saddam?

The GOP will have now have even less trouble painting Dean as the thing America fears the most- a 'weak on defense liberal'. This on top of his "We won"t always have the strongest military." comment.

I have some swamp land in Florida to sell them. And you.

He had a gigantic hard on for a war, and nothing at all would have stopped him.

This is RW spin.

Plus, it was all unnecessary as no WMD, uranium was a fraud, not a danger to U.S.

Trust me the story will not play well in ANY military
post where wifes are telling their husbands, keep your head
down and come home, you hear me?

If this story makes the rounds and it is, them wives will go
hmmm... so I could have avoided telling my SO to keep his head
low and come home...

By the way I was on them shoes back in February, when I told my
hubby to keep safe and come home... trust me, this just angers
me more... that this administration not only LIED to get thier
war, but COULD HAVE AVOIDED IT.

that will be bad news for Dean as well? DESPERATE.

I was just about to post the same thing.

Anything that hurts the case for the war is good news for Dean.

And he was the one who ordered the sailors on the Kitty Hawk to post the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

:eyes:

He was sitting next to Bill Clinton at the time.

That's news to me.

n/t

when BushCo completely fabricated reasons to drag us into a completely unnecessary war?

I also remember Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt running in behind to support the invasion.

Iraq wanted to make peace with us (we knew they were openly offering to cooperate), Bush blows them off and lies to us, alienates most of the world from the US, American troops and Iraqi civilians are being killed practically every day since the "liberation", and somehow this is bad for Dean?

It's been a long day. Maybe I need to read this later. I don't get it.

Why don't you spend some of the time and energy you devote to DU to knocking on some doors in your neighborhood to tell people about Kerry. He sure could use some help, it looks like, and you're not changing a single mind here.

Sometimes people know what conclusion they want to reach and then take the facts and lead them to that conclusion. I believe that you are reasoning that it was wrong for Bush to invade Iraq, but right for Senators to give him the ability to do so. Okay. Then Dean is a big jerk.

Remember that quote from Bush? He told Saddam that if he didn't disarm in 3 days we would attack. We attacked.

I still keep shaking my head. How can you disarm if you already have?

He KNEW this!

Keep pounding this quote 3 days before he bombed. Don't let anyone forget!

...the ability to stretch any headline into a Dean bash.

The GOP will paint any Democrat as a pantywaist on defense. If you think Kerry will be immune, you are being naive (just ask Max Cleland or John McCain).

If the Democrats have truly sunk as low as to choose their presidential nominee based upon who the GOP may have a harder time slandering, well, it's over for the Democrats.

Is electibility really your only problem with Dean? If we fast-forward to a hypothetical Dean innaguration on 1/20/05, would that be a happy day for you or will you be bitter that Kerry fumbled his chance?

Anything to imagine a Dean setback. You are truly comical.

But let's take your comments at face value. You say that the negotiations by Iraq to avert war were "proof" a hawkish stance was a good thing. In fact, all it proved was that an overwhelmingly powerful nation (the USA) could bully a small and near defenseless one (Iraq). Wow. What a shocking development.

Have the facts come out to show that Iraq was a true threat to the USA at ANY time? No.

Have the facts come out that BushCo ever sincerely intended to consider anything short of a war? No.

Have you finally come up with a dent in Dean's armor?

Not even close.

all day long - you might as well get used to it - he will be the nominee -

what is your point anyhow?

I'm not a Dean supporter, but your post makes no sense to me.

Just wanted to throw that one in. No empire, nor great army, lasts forever.

Oh dear, I'm sorry.....did I upset the "Finally one against Dean!" apple cart?

Now we learn that the war was totally unnecessary.

Yeah, totally bad news for Dean.

Put a fork in Dean, he's done.

What this means is that Bush was hell-bent on having a war. THEREFORE, he should NEVER have been given the power to start the war. THAT is the implication of these revelations.

The original thesis for PNAC was written in 1982. No matter what Saddam or anyone else said, the plans to invade iraq had been in place for 2 decades. Iraq was the linchpin to taking over the entire middle east. It was their plan from the beginningto invade iraq because the rest of the countries they wanted couldn't be taken without first overpowering the weak saddam regime.

I think there is no one here who thought that the US could not walk thru the iraqi defenses in a few days. Remember that iraq had been the target of sanctions for over ten years. The iraq expenditures for defense in the years leading up to the war were ONE THIRD of the defense budget for Kuwait! There is no one with any knowledge of international afairs who thought that saddam had any chance of standing up before the american onslaught. NO ONE that is, beside the white house and the american enterprise institute, and they were the only ones behind the war.

Aside from that, you could be right.

And I've apparently gone through the black hole into the parallel universe without even realizing it. Otherwise, your post makes absolutely no sense. :eyes:

Talk about long arming.

"He's making it up as he goes along."

But since he's going to end up facing Bush I don't see how this is a problem.