What has changed today? Is the war ok now? What has changed?

I keep seeing this posts dooming us. The only difference is that we thought Saddam would be sooner, or next year, and wondered when Osama would be.

This is like a feeding frenzy egged on by the media, Lieberman, and some Clark supporters.

Howard Dean told the truth months ago. It is still the truth today.

Wesley Clark let him down today by saying that the world was a safer place since Saddam was caught.

The other candidates are taking the side of the Iraq War lies, and using it against Dean. Kucinich is the only one speaking out at all now.

So, I ask, how is the illegitimate war more right today?

that Bush will be stronger in the foreign policy area than previously assumed. Only a heavyweight will do.

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 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.

"Bush will be stronger in the foreign policy area than previously assumed."

What so many Clark supporters don't understand is that Dean supporters (and Kucinich, Edwards, Gephardt and some Kerry supporters) have ALWAYS thought that Shrub would be almost invincible when it comes to the War on Terra. The vast majority of Clark supporters have been the ones saying we must fight fire with fire and win by the repubs script by one upping Shrub on foreign policy.

Dean supporters have understood that such a campaign is not the way to win Dem and progressive voters- nor intelligent swing voters who are very disillusioned with Shrub. We've understood for some time that we have to write our own script and set the rules of the game if we expect to win. We'll NEVER win playing by their rules- no matter who our nominee is.

The voters for whom this is the deciding issue are Shrub voters. Not "even" Clark can win them to the D side. But go ahead and preach your mantra of "foreign policy, foreign policy" and see how well that election turns out. Hint- can you say repeat of 2002?

If before the war began we had put a nice hefty 25, 50, maybe 75 or 100 million dollar bounty on Saddam's head, I wonder what we would have accomplished without losing 450 of our finest, needless to mention the other carnage which accompanied bush's rush to war.

War in and of itself is bad enough, but this was war for the sake of revenge, and that makes it especially vile.

All that being said, am I glad Saddam as an ostensible leader was captured? Let's see how it all shakes out in Iraq. But, am I glad Saddam as an evil man was captured? Absolutely! He never ever should have risen to the position he had, and then stayed there as long as he did. Duh, wonder how that happened.

my thoughts:those of us who are antiwar aneed tp stay on message.we still protested while the war was popularThe cannidates whoare antiwar need to say on message.They were aganisnt the war for the same reasons we were becuase it was wrong.Not because it was popular to be anti war but becauseit was wrong we made it throughthe first bombings and the "end" of the war with statue pulling and all.And our cannidates did aswell
The occupation is still illegal.IThis is what the cannidates need to focus on
The troops need too be brought home now since saddam is captured.
the media whores will treat prince georgie as His Holy Emperor George Freedom loving Bush for awhile. and will make it out as if he personally lassoed saddam himself for a couple weeks but we need to stay on message
One dictator down one to go

The world, and Iraq in particular, is rid of a very evil person. The Hussein regime committed mass murder to include women and children; tortured and maimed men, women and children. How can ANYONE say the world is not better off now that he is in custody. This perp even had childrens' prisons. If I weep a tear, it will be for those who lost their lives, were tortured, and lost loved ones under Saddam's regime. How about that for staying on message?. I would love to see the day a Republican or Democrat spin-miester walked the streets of Baghdad asking 'help us spin the tyrants' capture in order to say on message'. BTW - the celebrations in Iraq were NOT staged - saw that on another thread so I will leave it at that.

How about the Iraqis we have killed? You will not weep a tear for our soldiers, their families and the innocent Iraqis killed for a war that was begin on lies?

I would utilize all our national power to end evil throughout the world. I have served in war and peace - and would do so again for the oppressed. I am sorry if I offend anyone's sensitivities, but the UN is a joke, lots of talk while innocents die. Now if I was in charge, and I never will be, I would do everything in my power to protect the children of the world first - they are the true innocents. Yea, sounds like a pipe-dream, but they are the ones who suffer - and this suffering is most often caused by the 'little Hitler' dicators who line their pockets. To regulate the US military in not acting against these third world tyrants is dooming the helpless to everlasting suffering.

Shrub stood up to the Chinese premier the other day and demanded that his dictatorial gov't stop intimidating and torturing the people of Tibet and Taiwan. Now I get it- we're against evil dictators.

Except- gee, that didn't actually happen that way, now did it? Instead, Shrub took the side of the oppressive Chinese gov't and demanded that the people of Taiwan give up *their* bid for democracy and self rule. I guess it's only a human rights violation if it doesn't interfere with Corporate America's profit margin.


And so you remember, we weren't "sold" the Iraq invasion on a human rights basis. We were told, very explicitly, that Hussein had stockpiles of WMDs sufficient to make Iraq an imminent threat to the US. *That* is what was a lie and why the Iraq invasion was wrong. No one has said that Hussein was a good guy- just that we didn't have the right to act in contravention of international law just so we could get our claws on Iraq's oil reserves. To NOW say that the invasion was justified based on him being a really really bad man is ridiculous.

that we need to stay on message about why the war was wrong and why violence is not an answer and that we need to get the troops the FUCK outta iraq now since there is no reason they need to stay

By Clark you noted in your remarks please?

"Wesley Clark let him down today by saying that the world was a safer place since Saddam was caught. "

Will await...thanks

However, I just saw him on CNN, and he did a good job. He stood by his criticisms of Bush in the face of Judy Woodruff's swarminess.
I tried to do a search, but the board is so fast I can't find it. It was a few hours ago on here.

He did a good job on CNN just now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=906250&mesg_id=906250

First post.

so stop asking about it. We got Saddam--Bush was right. EOM

He was right about attacking Iraq pre-emptively because Saddam is an evil man who gassed his own people. Right? Saddam had WMD and needed to be deposed and possibly assassinated. Right? Now we got em-dead or alive--actually alive-and so Bush must have been right about attacking Iraq--he is evil and we got em and we are rid of a dictator who was threat to the whole world. Bush is a wonderful war time president.

It's not as if no one expected this.

The media's having a fine time with the situation, and that will continue, no doubt, for at least a week.

After that...same (or more) violence over there, etc. Chimpy and company will continue with their plans.

what has changed "IS THE PERCEPTION" that Bush is strong in Foreign Policy, and did a good thing by capturing Saddam.....

Before Bush looked weak in that area.

I am talking about the sheeples and mass perception considering that the media will sign praises for the next six months.

Our strongest candidate to neutralize this perception is Clark.

You can't just ignore that the whole point of this damn election is to BEAT BUSH........!!

(can't understand why this is not simple to understand...i'ts not like I'm that smart).... common sense should be hitting right about now!

You need to give it a few days or longer.

Will be affected by this. We have to accept that and work based on that premise......

to wait, wait for what? For spin doctors media whores to tell us how to think?

I don't need that type of assistance, as I am smart enought to figure it out on my own.

Of course, middle America will consider this a good thing.... and Bush will get the credit.

We don't need a crystal ball to understand this, do we?

I think you are wrong. I think people are waking up some, and I think they are far more skeptical than you think.

outcome was possible. Did you think that the largest and most sophisticated military in the world would be unable to find him?

Poppy's revenge, you know.

I only wonder why it took them this long.

And I wonder why we haven't found Osama. That's what we should be doing.

A corrupt tyrannical dictator who should have been done with by Bush the First has now been caught. That's a good thing.

This does not in any way make the war justifiable. That is a separate issue.

The media are playing this as a huge story and so lots of people are in fact weighing in. (Note Skinner has opened 2 threads so far on the subject; the first one having 100 posts and the second fast approaching that).

I too would greatly appreciate a link to what you claim Wesley Clark said. I also will await your response on that.

In addition I would like to know why you feel 'the other candidates are taking the side of the Iraq War lies'. I fear you are confusing the capture of Hussein with the fact of the unjust war we started in Iraq.



http://www.jews4clark.com/page.asp?p=69

I read it in a thread. I will do a search again. Others reacted to it as well.

I just complimented him on the CNN interview just now.

I still do not see why the fact that we went to war on lies is ok now. Dean is still right.

I am just trying to see why the fact that Saddam is found makes the war any more justifiable, and why it makes the truths Dean is telling not important anymore.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=906250&mesg_id=906250

However in the CNN segment I saw he stood by his statements against Bush. I guess they all have to say the world is safer. What a shame.

My main position here is that attacks are now going on here toward Dean, who is not very likely to be a dove.

He is against the Iraq war, not war.

I feel that Lieberman and Kerry did not apparently stand up for the fact that the war was a lie. I do NOT think candidates should use the Saddam issue against each other. If they voted for the war, they should be clear on why.

I did myself hear Clark do that today. I don't like that he said the world is safer, but he did do the right thing in sticking by his position against the war.

We said he wasn't a threat to us. Pulling him out of a hole doesn't make him one.

that Saddam is a prisoner but still think it was a bad idea to invade.

...and soldiers will continue to needlessly die.

It will still cost us way to much to rebuild Iraq...
It will still cost the lives of our soldiers for no reason...

Even Busholini didn't gloat in his remarks. Whatever bump in his popularity results from this will be gone in a month.