Is this the deathblow to Dean's insurgent anti-war campaign?

Will we see candidates like Clark and Kerry start to emerge now that primary voters are possibly looking at the bigger picture?

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.

.... the only relevance for the good Doctor will now be all of the many negatives which he brings to the table - as perceived by those constituencies in those states and to those who are in "the middle" and who are critical to an electoral majority for the Democratic candidate.

Plain and simple: pack up the medical bag, Doctor. It's time to step back and to allow a candidate who can truly do battle with Rove and his DimSon without all of the rubbish which clings your own heels.

A candidate whose own military excellence (as opposed to your own glaring deficit in this arena) brings into sharp and vivid focus the difference between him and the pretender, Resident McHappyCrack, irrespective of how many Sadams he captures.

General, today is your day.

superior leadership. It certainly was superior leadership compared to all the ass-kissing that Dems, incl other candidates (except Kucinich) in Congress were so wont to do.

I find the other candidates severely lacking in this superior form of leadership.

Any comparison I've made to Kerry and the others, and even Gore (who, you apparently missed, recently endorsed Dean) has ended with the other candidate coming up not even in the picture.

Eloriel

They should be learning from Dean, not the other way around. He has transformed presidential politics almost overnight.

Did they cast their votes yet?

You're jumping the gun, matey!

DEAN IS A BABE IN THE WOOD COMPARED WITH THE BUSH REGIME.

Bush will maniputlate the conflict in Irac for his purposes regardless of havoc in creates in that country.
Since the mid-80's the Bush family has been implicated in the tradedy of that region -- supporting Saddam, bribing Iran, putting U.S. military in the Muslim Holy lands etc.


Dean ranting and rhetoric is just laughed at in the Whitehouse. He has no credibility to back it up and that is what matter in the General.

Bush will now do whatever will help him win in 04 regardless of the consequences, so that he and his minions can continue to divert power and wealth to their own.

I WORRY THAT IF BUSH IS NOT DEFEATED IN THE 04 ELECTION, the cause of progress and enlightenment in our country may never recover.

I WORRY THAT the candidate who leads in the primary POLLS, is the candidate LEAST LIKELY TO DEFEAT Bush in the General Elections, and LEAST PREPARED to lead a truly progressive American renaissance.

They were both "obscure, clueless" governors who "weren't ready" to take on the Republican machine. They both won.

And I think it's safe to say that Governor Dean is in their league, especially when you consider that he has practically wrapped up the nomination months before the first ballot has been cast.

Saddam on trail, on TV every week, talking about how Rummy, Reagan, and Bush Senior armed him and supported his dictatorship.

See here
There were few if any reservations evident in the range of weapons which President Ronald Reagan, and his successor George W. H. Bush were willing to sell Saddam Hussein.
Edit ...
And the instrument, the person, the envoy, who negotiated the process in the first instance, is the current U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
more ...
http://www.rense.com/general35/rums.htm

the price of one washed up impotent dictator has been dear, but then, he was never the real reason for going over there.

Dean.

He is an "agent of change" and can stand up for people. All these threads against Dean clearly show why he is the guy. People against Dean don't want change...and who does that benefit?

Because big money and power don't want him :eyes:

Sad, but Deannies only seem to care about their own campaign.

They will deny that getting Saddam increases AWOL Bush's statue
as Commander-In-Chief. They will deny that DEAN'S lacks the credentials needed to
stick it to him.

Of all the major candidates, the "Mayor of Vermont" has the weakest qualification on domestic foreign policy. But, Deannies don't care.

Deannies, PLEASE, PLEASE!!

Why do you think Hillary is playing the "Hawk."
Do you think that's really the way she feels? The environment is so changed from before 9/11 that "draft-dodge" Bill says he would have voted for the IWR and is apparently supporting a "GENERAL" for the White House.

Why are you putting up a PHONY CANDIDATE against the PHONY IN THE WHITEHOUSE. The campaign is going to be two phonies using tons of their supporter's money to throw dirt against one another.

AGAIN. I AM ASKING FOR THOUGHTFULL ARGUEMENT FROM YOU DEAN SUPPORTERS, NOT JUST BLUSTER AND ARROGANCE.

I get enough of plugged-ear ranting in my kitchen.

It won't begin with a rant like this.

in your immensly rude posts. It has been 15 hours since you posted and close to 10 since I did in a thread you accused me of being ignorant over records. I have asked for a link and still haven't gotten one. You have plenty of time to call us names how about finding some time to back up your rude mouth.

which loser candidate are your trying to prop up?

progressives here. There are "Just Wars" when one has been attacked. We were not attacked by Iraq or Saddam.

the facts of the war? It doesn't . Saddam has been out of power for months. The war goes on . These attacks on Dean are Rovian in nature.

Dr Dean needs now truly hammer hard on issues like fiscal responisible and jobs.

The war goes on, our soldiers continue to die, and it was all still based on lies, lies, lies. I'm voting Kucinich, but this will only be a minor poke at the anti-war campaigns.

why does capturing saddam change anything?

Does anyone honestly believe it will change what is happening on the ground in Iraq?

Not even the neo-cons are saying that.

This will hold no more sway than any other.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

(you might want to watch the name calling- some might consider it rude)

I do think that the arrest of a tin pot dictator makes a splash like any new celeb scandal. I don't think that's how the country decide its votes.

is kind of warped...

And it may influence the voting Public's perception.

Especially those who are fence sitters.

And, man. I love Al Gore. But that poor guy's got the worst timing ever.

I doubt ANYONE in the Dem camp could have seen this coming. This still screws poor Al over though.

.... what I have been thinking all morning long.

Bet ya' that Al wished he had waited a week to do his grandstand!

Mr. Gore's not only been severely upstaged by this amazing development, but doing so while supporting a candidate whose stock just went to "penny" status as a result of the refocus in the primary which will now inevitably take place in terms of the ultimate electoral dynamics.....

....where Dr. Dean will be seen as abjectly inadequate - specific to the many problems of his candidacy as it will play in the general election - in his ability to prevail in November.

Today's event might have been the best wake up call that the Democrats could have wished for before they threw our party into fifth gear in the rush for the end of that cliff.

"I supported this effort in Iraq without regard for the political consequences because it was the right thing to do. I still feel that way now and today is a major step toward stabilizing Iraq and building a new democracy." — Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo.

That's a quote from a man who has a pair worth admiring. GEPHARDT '04!!!

Invading Iraq to create a Democracy? Wasn't it immenent threat from WMD's?

imminent threat from WMD's.

I smell a Faux news viewer.

He must keep them in a jar of formaldehyde, because he sure as Hell hasn't used them since that unelected piece of shit stole the white house.

Wrongly

How does truth change? Do you mean the dynamics have changed? We shall see and that may be true, but that is no reason to stop telling the truth.

Last I checked, the US went in to find and eliminate "WMD". Since they haven't found any, and likely won't that says to me that the antiwar movement is vindicated.

If you believe this too, what have you done today to educate the people of that case?

in international affairs: winning. This will be viewed as a win, no matter what you or I think the reality of the situation is. WMDs have been out of sight and mind for a while now -- practically no one talks about them any more. It's unrealistic to suddenly expect people to care about them, especially when they have a cheap success to latch onto as a replacement.

The Dean supporters are over-analyzing this.

can't you handle that?

Why do we need a new commander in chief?

A war that was based on the lies of WMD that do not exist. We went in there to take the oil.

to what, accomodate them?

and coming from Dean makes that much more difficult.

Oh wait...

Or is it just DEANS THE BEST DEANS THE BEST DEANS THE BEST non-stop?

And why do I get the feeling it's someone with a low IQ who wasn't elected?

Man, as I've said a couple times already on DU this a.m., I feel like Winston Smith in 1984 who remembers the past that everyone else has forgotten because it's been sucked down the memory hole.

(Begin Sarcasm)
We invaded Iraq to capture Hussein...that's always been the reason. Those who opposed Iraq were scoffing at the possibility of capturing Hussein. There were never any other arguments made against invading Iraq.

Now drop that piece of contradictory history down the memory hole before the Thought Police catch you holding onto it.

I love Big Bush.
(End Sarcasm)

And here all this time I thought it was because Iraq posed an imminent threat to my life and limb.

It's a takeoff on 1984 where one day Oceania says it is at war with Easteasia and allies with Eurasia, then the next day it says they are at war with Eurasia and that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia and allies with Eastasia.

It's a commentary on how quickly many here seem to have forgotten why many of us opposed the invasion of Iraq. Capturing Hussein and liberating the Iraqi were NOT the reasons we were told for why we needed to invade; we were basically told that if we didn't invade we might see a mushroom cloud laced with anthrax rising from Yourhometown, USA.

This history is apparently forgotten now and we're all clamoring about how Hussein's capture is a big victory for our Fearless Leader, as if this was why he lead us into Iraq in the first place.

We went to war for a lie. Saddam's capture doesn't change that.

anti-Iraq-war people were, and who were jumping on the bandwagon, yes. It's going to clarify things, for sure.

I think those struck with fear will go to Clark and Kerry, who will sway toward Bush, and Dean and Kucinich will once again be free to take the good anti-Iraq-war folks. Dean and Kucinich will once again have their chance to slap around Kerry and Clark.

If the attacks on our troops subside substantially, my best guess is yes, it's all over for Dean.

If the attacks remain at the current level or increase, Dean could be a shoe-in.

It's definitely too soon to say one way or the other.

Did we find WMDs? Was SH a threat to the U.S.?

Bush is a failure at foreign policy and domestic policy. Dean's campaign is not just about anti-Iaq war by a long shot. The bigger problems we are experiencing are domestic in nature, and Dean has great strengths in this area.

This will blow over, the attacks wil continue, and Bush will be on the ropes again soon.

.... and for the short term, this is a big event.

Problem is, this is unlikely to have much effect on what's going on in Iraq. A lot of thicker Americans will think it will, but over the coming months they will find themselves wrong again.

I almost like this. Some of the candidates are *really* showing their true colors. Better now than later.

I think Saddam's capture will actually help him in the weeks to come. This capture gives Bush the trump card to beat either Kerry or Clark, but NOT Dean. Dean is much stronger on Domestic Issues and balancing budgets/reducing deficits than any of the others. He has something to challenge Bush on whereas the others no longer do.

I have no choice but to go with Dean.

Getting Saddam turns Dean's anti-IWR diatribes into dust with the majority of the American people. He's a one-trick pony from a perception perspective. He painted himself as the anti-war candidate assuming that Saddam would never be captured. He attacked others that voted for the IWR with UN backing and said they give Bush a "blank check". He went down the wrong road and it's going to doom his campaign. Watch and learn.

Kerry is by far the best candidate for domestic issues like the environment, healthcare reform, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, small business initiatives, etc. Add his extensive foreign policy experience and national security background AND his decorated war veteran background and the fact that Dean is missing those elements thus proving that he is not the guy to run against Bush.

You'll predictably disagree, but it's the truth.

His opinions have changed with every poll, every swing in opinion.

He supported the Biden-Lugar resolution which allowed the president to do exactly the same things regarding going to war with Iraq with fewer requirements to engage with the UN and to exhaust diplomatic efforts. Then, in the last two weeks' of Jan and the first two weeks' of Feb, he flip-flopped between statements of going to war with Iraq unilaterally if the UN did not enforce its resolutions, and stating we would only go to war with UN approval.

Once the war started, and we started having a lot of human losses due to guerilla warfare tactics, Dean conveiniently "forgot" his statements on going to war with Iraq.

He then starting touting himself as the only candidate who was against the war, forgetting Kucinich, Sharpton, and Braun.

Hussein's capture changes nothing. We still have ruined the international goodwill we had after 9/11, we still needlessly killed thousands of civilians and killed and wounded thousands of our soldiers, we've ruined the Iraqi infrastructure, we've destabilized the region and we have no clue how to put humpty dumpty back together again.

As many analysts have already said, the insurgency against our occupation has grown beyond Hussein's direction or even influence. This war is still wrong: Hussein, like Jessica Lynch, is a cover-up for a systemic failure of the entire invasion. Americans, if nothing else, have short memories. If our soldiers keep dying, the people wont' give a whit what happens to any tinpot dictator anywhere.

ChimpCo will see its stock rise modestly because of this. But there is no way but down after that.

The people in that part of the world do not want us there. There is an inherent cultural conflict that is too stark to overcome. And this whole adventure is costing a fortune.

By next fall, the American people will be sick of all this. At least, I hope so.

an illegal, unethical and immoral invasion of a country complying with the UN resolution and essentially defenseless against our bombs?

not unless this ends the resistance, which i doubt.

... Dr. Dean will be recognized now for the very serious baggage, justified or unjustified as it may be, that he brings to the electoral dynamic.

The General is the one who primarily benefits from today's capture as the focus now, hopefully, becomes serious in terms of defeating DimSon after this shocking development this morning. As opposed to and as a substitute for engaging in light-headed adoration of a man who, albeit, may be well principled and progressive, but has not a chance in hell of defeating the Rove juggernaut.

This changes nothing except whoremedia land..and only for a little while then back to reality.

I think Dean would have problems if they found WMD proving that Iraq was indeed an iminent threat, but instead they found Saddam...someone who we all knew was going to get caught in the first place. The only suprising thing I see is the fact that it took almost 9 months for the SOB to get captured.

Unless Democrats decide to give up and perpetuate the lie that invading Iraq had anything to do with defeating terrorism and perpetuate the lie that Al Queda and Saddaam are linked, then I don't see the logic in the assumption that capturing Saddam = Dean's defeat.

If there is never again another terror-related attack on this planet because Saddam was caught, then, yes, Dean will be proven wrong.

But if the guerilla warfare continues in Iraq and terrorist attacks continue around the world unabated, then Dean's position is proven to be true: That the War in Iraq is a waste of lives and resources, because it won't diminish the threat of terrorism.

Everyone, please - take a deep breath.

The one thing that everyone on this thread agrees on is that George W. Bush must become a "two-time loser" in 2004. He didn't win the 2000 election, and we certainly can't afford to have him win next year's election, either.

So we captured Saddam Hussein. Whoopi-ti-do. Iraq is still in shambles, the American economy is still shot, corporations are still shutting down factories stateside and moving jobs overseas, women in America are being denied access to life-saving health care, scientific research is being stymied by politico-religious dogma, and so on.

Now, for all of you "anti-Clark Deanie Babies" and "anti-Dean Clark Bars," I have an announcement to make. I like both Dean and Clark.

I like Dean because he takes risks (re: his relatively strong opposition to the Iraq war), because he made a good show in Vermont, because his take on health care and Medicare comes from the experience of one who actually provided heath care, and because his focus on domestic policy will benefit all Americans instead of just the richest 2%. Mine was the last hand that Dean shook at the public rally in Dallas back in July - another risk, setting foot in what's traditionally considered "Bush Country" because he actually thinks he can take Texas' electoral votes away from Bush.

And then there's Clark. He came in rather late, but he came in strong. He knows foreign policy. He can make great strides towards defusing the tension between America and the rest of the world. Clark is more qualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief than any other candidate in the 2004 race. (Yes, that includes Dean.) His work in military bureaucracy may be of great help in navigating through the growing political bureaucracy in DC.

I saw my first CLARK IN 2004 bumper sticker in Dallas a couple of days ago. I left a message on the guy's windshield stating that even though I support Dean, Clark has earned my respect. The two camps should be friends, not enemies - leave the intra-party squabbling to the Republicans; it's better served there.

If Dean gets the nod, I'll vote for Dean. If Clark gets the nod, I'll vote for Clark. Same goes for Kucinich (a true bulldog), Sharpton, Gephardt, Kerry, or whomever gets the Democratic nomination. Hussein's capture doesn't change a damn thing. We know what led to his capture and how unnecessary and tragic it all was. Nope, not a damn thing. The playbook remains the same. The invasion of Iraq remains wrong. And Dean was still correct to speak out when he did.

There - I've said my peace. (phew!)

And the ones listening ain't the ones gabbing about all this.

Tempest in a teapot, innit. Screw Saddam-- we got an election to win.

because there is more to Dean's campaign than his anti-Iraq-war stance.

Capturing Saddam is not the reason that bu$h was ceded power to use military force. Capturing him is good, but to suggest that it's all over is like taking your eye off the ball.

Is this a blow to his credibility as strong on defense?

Are the American people retarded?

If the moon exploded, would Bush get a boner?

Questions, questions, questions...

Laughin out loud... Thanks :yourock:

Was the War suddenly made just because of Saddam's capture? No.
Also, if this is bad for Dean because he was anti-war, why do you think it's helpful to Clark?

It is what it is, a great accomplishment in the midst of a quagmire. If the insurgent guerilla attacks continue then this will only delay a continuation of the same debate that we've been having about Iraq. If this is the beginning of a peaceful Iraq then Bush will be seen as the stronger Foreign Policy candidate no matter who our nominee is.

Dean never limited himself to an anti-war position. I would be surprised if there is any significant change in the dem polls.

Bush will get a bounce.

I would also be surprised if Saddam's capture ends the war.

That being aside, capturing Saddam is a good thing. It means we can declare victory and come home.

hmmmm, I thought they were against. Guess it changes weekly.

I don't actually think so, but it does seem to be a common thread.

I'm not sure if it's worth the effort to explain their positions since it will fall on deaf ears.

when Gore's endorsement came out, a lot of people in other camps were not only honest in their assessment that it would help Dean - but they were congratulatory and reasonably magnanimous about it. There were some who werent - but there are always a few.

Today was a hit to the Dean candidacy. If the Dean supporters cant be just as honest about that - then we have a problem. This is not a dreamworld where if you want Bush* out bad enough it'll happen. At least consider the possibility that this hurts Dean, that the analysts on the news aren't all part of some vast right wing conspiracy, that maybe - just maybe - some of the democrats on this board aren't trying to hurt you - but are coming back to this board time and again in a desperate attempt to persuade you to see that this is not the time for the "Into the Valley of Death rode the 600!" battlecry.

ABB means winning the GE and getting that SOB out

If he wins the primary, I fear we have little chance in 2004.

I like Dean, I have supported Dean, I think he has done great things for the Democratic Party in encouraging them to have a backbone. But Howard Dean is not the right candidate for 2004, especially after what happened today.

The American people are going to vote based on fear and thoughts of war. Our only chance is to have someone who the American people think will defend and lead them. Howard Dean is not that man.

Dean would make a great peacetime president, like Bill Clinton.

Bull! However, Dean would make a good peace time President, because we'd be at peace....

you are right to question his relavance for 2004 but I don't think he's the best choice in peacetime either.

and I suspect you'll be proven wrong when Dean is not only the Democratic Nominee, he kicks Bush$ a$$ back to Texa$.....

I just don't think he's the Democrat's best choice for this time in history.

Thanks.

... Dean should be toast now.

the area that Bush will be said to be the strongest: Makes for a bad match up.

We need our strongest candidate in Bush's perceived strongest area...
That would be Clark who is strongest in foreign policy...and therefore becomes our strongest candidate to put up against Bush, now strengthened by Saddam's capture. Bush will run on this perceived success. Only Clark can neutralize Bush with Clark's immense knowledge on all things international.

Note the difference in approach on his little question asked to both Clark and Dean on Hardball at each's interview....

12/7/03 Hardball Interview with General Wesley K. Clark:

MATTHEWS: General, do you think Osama bin Laden, if we catch him, when we catch him, should be tried here at the U.S. or in the Hague, the international court?

CLARK: I would like to see him tried in the Hague, and I tell you why. I think it's very important for U.S. legitimacy and for building other support in the war on terror for trying them in the Hague,e under international law with an international group of justices, bringing witnesses from other nations. Remember, 80 other nations lost citizens in that strike on the World Trade Center. It was a crime against humanity, and he needs to be tried in international court.

MATTHEWS: Well, 3,000 Americans were killed here. Do you believe he should be held exempt from capital punishment, because if you send him to Hague he will be. They don't have capital punishment at the Hague.

CLARK: I think that's a separate issue.

MATTHEWS: No, it's a key issue, because the sentencing limitation, they do not execute people at the Hague.

CLARK: I think that you can adequately punish Osama bin Laden, and you've got to look beyond simple retribution against an individual. You have to look at what's in the long-term security interest in the security in America and you have to look at how we handle the war on terror from here on out.

MATTHEWS: But doesn't life in Holland beat life in a cave?

CLARK: Not in a Dutch prison. Chris, they're under water, they're damp, they're cold, they're really miserable.

KNOWLEDGE OF FOREIGN POLICY VERSUS UNINFORMED INDIFFERENCE

11/31/03 Hardball Interview with Howard Dean:

MATTHEWS: Who should try Osama bin Laden if we catch him? We or the World Court?

DEAN: I don't think it makes a lot of difference. I'm happy...

MATTHEWS: But who would you like to, if you were president of the United States, would you insist on us trying him, since he was involved in blowing up the World Trade Center, or would you let The Hague do it?

DEAN: You know, the truth is it doesn't make a lot of difference to me as long as he is brought to justice. I think that's the critical part of that.

MATTHEWS: How about Saddam Hussein? Should we try him in criminal and execute him...

DEAN: Again, we are allowing the Bosnian war criminals to be tried at The International Court in The Hague. That suits me fine. As long as they're brought to justice and tried, and so far we haven't had to have that discussion because the president has not been able to find either one of them.

how to try war criminals.

"You've been experienced and your gaining more experience on how to try a war criminal ...It is an honor to have you" -Chris Mathews

IMO Clark was being praised by tweety. I missed parts of the interview. Did anyone else see that today?

and according to one of the most respected democrats to serve in the white house, president Truman, "if the republicans are given a choice between a republican and a republican lite, they will vote the republican every time".

Time for a change! VOTE DEAN!!

this will elevate Edwards, Kerry and it won't hurt Gep.

right above your post how this would affect Dean v. Clark.

Could you flesh out your answer now? Cause You really haven't said anything.

I do not have all that much to disagree with re the foreign policy concept though I do not think it has the same degree of significance as you. A simple difference of opinion.

I suggest it hurts Clark more, why ? The main thrust of his candidacy is he's a military man who believes in defense but is also somehow a liberal. One of his talking points has been how his background will allow him to get in there and clean this mess up once he's elected. This success suggests that the current management is capable of gett the job done, at least to the American audiance that actually casts votes. Thats why.

I suggest it also hurts Dean as the inevitable swell of patriatism that will follow this trumps his central theme. Those fuck ups in Washington cannot even capture ONE guy. Doesn't remove everything but it does take the crease out of his thrust. It hurts.

Kucinich has even had the great good sense to realize this, the other anti-war guy, and flipped himself 180 degrees in his statement today. I guess he's a little quicker on the uptake that these two or these two are still trying t figure out a way out of this problem.

of Iraq. Clark was not the one at the last debate checking his watch and saying: enough with Iraq already.

I'll be interested to watch how the rhetoric changes

The war will continue indefinitely. That is what Bush wants.

What has changed? Dean will not lose his support over this. There is much more to Dean then you seem to grasp. We shall see.

I think it would be good if Clark and Kerry were helped, because Bush will make the campaign about the "War on Terror," and will be able to neutralize the economy as an issue.

See my thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=907797

for my analysis.

..

this doesn't change the fact that the war was wrong. Bush lied about going to war basing it on WMD and about Iraq being part of the 9/11 terrorists. The US is already in Iraq and now they captured the leader who was on the lam--big deal.

Dean continues to look more and more marginal. Dean IS NOT the candidate we need right now. We need someone who can match Bush point for point, plus appear STRONGER.

We were bound to get Saddam eventually, it doesn't change the fact that the war was wrong. I think the insurgency will continue, and possibly even get worse, so this does not take the war issue off the table, and besides the war is hardly the only issue that Dean is running on. For the record, I like Dean and he is my second choice after Clark.

Clark is supposed to be the anti-war candidate with foreign policy experience to top Bush...but if Bush appears to be suceeding...then it won't matter who the nominee is in this area....

So the issue will be on the economy....

But it never stops amazing me how many here think Dean's a single issue candidate...

Perhaps you should take some time to actually go to a meetup and meet the people who have worked so hard to put Dean in the front of the candidates....might answer some of your questions...