I'm gonna say it. We must nominate a Dem that supported the war.

I'm sorry, but with the capture of Saddam today it only proves to the American people that the war was justified. Even though here at DU can say otherwise, if we run a Democrat that was against this war now that he's been cought, we have no legs to stand on.

Clark, Dean, Kucinich, Braun and Sharpton can't win now. Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt can.

We either nominate a pro-Iraq war Dem, or we lose in 2004 - it's simple.

Let's wait and see how things shape up. If the hopes and desires of every American play out and the attacks against our troops subside, then you're probably right.

If the attacks remain the same or increase, no way.

Either way, the Democratic Party is in a position to take Dumbass* out of the White House.

Most Americans will believe now that we've captured Saddam, that in the long run the war was justified. That was the whole point of this war, and we've done it. Bush can say he lied all he wanted, but he did it for a cause and that cause was met.

Bush got what he wanted with going to war with Iraq.

stupidty.

They won't give a shit about Saddam.

We should run a pro war dem, like Edwards?

I don't follow your logic. Saddam does not equal Osama.

something's wrong with both this picture, and this logic.

I hate to call BS on one of my Utah brothers, but I must.

This capture in no way justifies the illegal and immoral US war. You are correct about the perception of Joe Sixpack, but that only means the challenge is ours to educate them.

Don't let a pop opinion sway your sense of right and wrong.

A majority of Americans supported the war in Iraq. Even after the horrible massacre of OUR people, a majority still supported it. Now that the whole cause of the war (getting Saddam) has been met, even more will support it.

Frankly as much as I hate to say it, Republicans will run a campaign NOW comparing any Democrat that was against the war as allies with Saddam.

See this may not be how I feel, but it's how the bulk of this country will feel and THAT scares me. The bodies can continue to rise, but in the end Bush can tout he got Saddam and that this is the small price to pay for such leverage; before he couldn't. If anyone is capable of politicizing, it'll be Bush. Sadly the nations people are stupid enough to buy it.

and we don't buy it

Pish tosh

The war was unjustified and illegal

It doesn't help to have a shill of our own who is on the wrong side of this illegal war---then what would the difference be between * and our candidate?

This was a blow to the anti-war movement because average American do not think in terms of life. They think in terms of accomplishments. 300 dead pales in comparison to the capturing of Saddam.

buck up

Every person who supports the war, and thinks the Saddam capture was somehow more of a vindication of war, is an opportunity for YOU to teach them differently.

Did you know that the Chinese character for "crisis" also means "opportunity"? Food for thought. This is the time which will test what we're made of. You and me are Utah kids. We don't fucking go down without one hell of a fight.

It removes one more "reason" (we're on the hunt) for us to continue to fork over lives and treasure rather than ceding control.

We are going to be on the right side of this issue, no matter what. And we will be shown to be right, in time, whether it's tomorrow, or a month from now, or even years.

Crisis = Opportunity

No matter how this plays out, anti-war Democrats will still be able to nail the shrub's hide to the wall.

And even better, now they won't look like they're 'siding with the enemy'. Who's the enemy? Saddam? NO.

Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda.

Osama is still out there snickering about what a weak failure bush is. The 9/11 investigations are scheduled to end in May. Will the American people stop expecting answers? I don't think so. I KNOW the widows won't.

Another great strategic positive for anti-war Democrats... will be the fact that we are still no safer for Saddam's caputre. Sure, the Iraqis are, and that's great. But our domestic front is in shambles, and people will forget about Iraq in a heartbeat when faced with rising foreclosures, unemployment, bankruptcies, etc.

This is great news in every way imaginable.

won't even be voting in 2004.

The rest are the Bush choir who would still vote for him if he were caught in bed with a little boy.

:blush:

Please. The capture of Saddam, while excellent news and measurable progress, does not equate to all around success in the region.

We still have to return Iraq to some semblance of normalcy. If we don't start acting as if we have some kind of sane plan (that would be NOT gouging the Iraqi's oil supply for US and European oil co. profits), then things may drag out for some time.

Nice scare tactic though. :eyes:

Because if the Democrats legitimize that concept, then there will be pre-emptive war after pre-emptive war. You've certainly read the PNAC plan -- the neocons want this country to dominate the Middle East. That is plain wrong.

But I understand the American people. THAT is what scares me.

have a little faith there, bro.

this thing ain't over yet.

huh :silly:

because he has experience in the area. and a history to back him up. he also speaks well on the issues.

Do you think attacks will stop in Iraq? Do you think there won't be lots more dead American soldiers and innocent Iraqis? Have we accomplished anything in the war on terror? Is Iraq not a far more active terrorist base than before our invasion? Do you think our occupation of Iraq and subsequent theft of their natural resources will no longer be resented?

I can't believe the narrow scope of vision I am seeing here at DU today.

Julie

This is a major blow to Dean, and I think it is now even more important to nominate someone who was on the side of the pro-war.

The public will now look at this war as a victory, and the anti-war rhetoric will go out the window in terms of effectiveness.

to continue to attack a candidate you don't support. Yestereay it was some other problem.

this kind of knee jerk reaction to complicated problems makes me despair that our party can take the country back.

And we've got great candidates who can do it. We all want out country back! You won't get it back as a Green.

Thanks for your efforts, you all. The great Nader man that you all hate just loves all the work you're doing for his cause.

Capitulators to the right's tactics of any stripe.

Clark is the ONLY Democrat with the foreign policy experience that has a chance. At this point, it's almost as if we NEED a candidate who has "General" in front of their name. Clark and Kerry might have gotten a boost today.

Clark/Kerry....Kerry/Clark moment. It'll take a military mind with experience to show the lack of in bush.

The only salvation here is to emphisize being against this war the way bush did it and show how ill-planed it was from start to finish.

Unless dean does another/major flip-flop on his war stance, he's dead in the water.


retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't mind seeing Green numbers grow, but I have a great deal of affection for the Democratic Party, and cheap pandering to Republican crimes gives me pain.

and Gephardt. To me IWR does not mean support for Bush's unilateral invasion; certainly a facilitator but not a supporter.

It will be a temporary relief to Bush's failing ratings, but in the end the people will come back to the issues. The things that matter to them are jobs, education and health care. Not that the Iraq war isn't important, it's just not on the top of the list for most Americans. It is on the top of the list for me. One of the things that got me interested in politics was my opposition to the war. But I don't think I'm representative of most Americans.

If you like Dean then stay the course. He's a good candidate who can hold his own in a debate about the war.

We're NOT going down that road again.

Are we mice or men, for Christ's sake? Stand up for what's RIGHT!!

We've been THROUGH this!!!

We need leadership.

I could understand where you're coming from. but kerry, lieberman, and gephardt. oh please you're going to make me stroke out from laughing, all of those who support the war will be making excuses 3 weeks from now as more american soldiers continue to be killed one by one.

there are too many forces in the middle east that do not want us to succeed there that the money will continue to flow freely. and we already know they have more then enough folks willing to die for a cause.

I agree with you that it helps Kerry, especially -- he's been careful to criticize Bu$h creatively, in ways that won't necessarily reflect badly on him as a candidate. I'm sure he knew what he was doing -- he's got a lagging campaign to save, and he can capitalize on this.

Edwards, too can make some political hay with it. Gephardt could, but probably won't -- if he was a savvy campaigner in a tough season, he'd have been a Dem candidate for the White House long before now, he's done it enough times and proved he's just not strong at capitalizing on his strengths.

I think Lieberman is a non-issue -- I don't think he has the charisma to bounce back from Gore endorsing someone else, and I don't think this will help him much.

There are so many other issues, though. For a month or two, yes -- this will change the dynamics. It's early to set the barn on fire, though, I think.

How does that capture of saddam show the war was justified. That statement makes absolutely no sense.

nfm

I'm not giving up. I still believe in America. I refuse to believe that we will elect a miserable, lying, warmongering, imperialist failure such as Bush.

So we caught the guy who didn't do anything to us. So? Does that mean we can come home now? Can we stop counting our dead soldiers? Is Iraq suddenly not a quaqmire? Can we forget about the 87 billion? This shine on this photo op will last until the next American kid dies for nothing. We went to war for a lie. Saddam's head on a pole can't change that.

...and, though firmly anti-Iraq war I am NOT a Dean supporter, so I don't speak from that perspective. The capture will probably raise Bush's ratings...for a while. But after the initial cheers, we are still left with hundreds dead and thousands injured (and I would be very surprised if not more to come), the endless financial drain, and above all, the illegimacy of the war itself. Not to mention that I doubt the Iraqi's are about to forget their dead, especially their dead children.

And finally...it's a long way till the election. And the election is not just about the Iraq war.

But I had just gotten up to this good news and was not looking past the fact that the war is still not over.

The media is the one having the frenzy.

Capturing Saddam was not why we went to war. Just wait another week, a few more suicide attacks, and then you'll realize that capturing Saddam meant absolutely nothing, even in the short-term.

The end doesn't justify the means.

And we are still in Iraq, will be for some time, and the American people still won't like it.

but the costs in Iraq will not stop with the capture of Saddam.

The costs of this illegal war will affect our domestic spending right through November.

By this point, the public will be over the 'rush' of being at war. They will be mired in the misery of dealing with the shrub's miserable failure of a domestic agenda. Iraq will be forgotten.

But Osama being free to do more damage to Americans, Al Qaeda, the stonewalling of the 9/11 investigations, and the miserable economy will be looming large in the public consciousness.

I pray it doesn't happen, but God Forbid it does, Bush and the Neocons will not be able to trot out their old reliable whipping boy, Saddam.

Their policies will be revealed as a cynical exercise in crony capitalism that have made America less-- not more-- safe.

But the sensible side of me says that until we stop sending the message that we're there for profit, that nothing will change with respect to Al Qaeda. Weren't at least some of the attacks there blamed on them?

this was nothing but an oedipal fantasy of george's to look better than his father and throw in a few neoconderthals who had thir evil reasons. WHERE ARE THE WMD????
all those soldiers dead for nothing.
all that destruction, for nothing.
all that $, for nothing.

'Nuff said.

let the repubs set our agenda - sigh- will we never learn not to do this

didn't Kerry just say w f*cked it up ?? so you're saying now it's not still f*cked? Maybe Ann Coulter is right about the democratic party after f*cking all.

OTOH > NOW we don't have to worry about putting a vet in office.

It forces BushCo to tackle the REAL problems of Iraq and Afghanistan and Osama bin Forgotten without resorting to hiding behind the Saddam red herring.

It may very well be that we have come to the point in time where we need to nominate a pro-war Dem, but I haven't given up hope QUITE yet. The war is still going on, and something could still happen to turn the tables on Bush. It's far from being over.

And my health ins premiums went down :shrug:

I keep referring to it over and over. "The American people will buy it." I wish more people here on DU would undertand that. This community here is no more representative of "normal" America than the Freepers on the other side of the aisle (more educated, though :) ).

We here at DU define things in terms of a world view; most Americans don't. We define things in depth; most Americans don't. This is a victory for * - plain and simple.

Clark can win it - the deaths will continue, and there will be no way to spin this into "Saddam loyalists" anymore. * will now look to expand the "war" by saying we must now focus on those terroists who want to "take away the freedom we have given the Iraqui people." Count on it. Clark can counter with his vast military experience and point out the fallacies in this argument, predicated on his OWN EXPERIENCES. He can point out the correct way to work within a world community.

Dean has no chance to do so - he is (to the vast majority) the anti-war candidate. I believe he is to give a major speech on foreign policy tomorrow - this will be his first attempt into "redefining" himself yet again into the moderate centrist personna (that he probably is, but so far has kept hidden, as it doesn't play well with the primary crowd). Good luck to him in trying to do so.

If indeed this plays out the way I (and you?) feel it will, then you are spot on. We need to come out of the DU cocoon and see things for what they truly are.

We are fortunate that we now have a chance to reevaluate the candidates, and pick the very best one to go against AWOL.

It would lend more creedence to your thread if you got rid of the Howard Dean banner.