If howard dean had his way, sadamn husein would be in power today

instead of in prison."

just prepare yourselves to refute that line in ads next year if dean is our nominee.

He is a Republican in Democratic clothing.

I wish somebody would just investigate him and out him for being a Republican operative! He sure as hell acts like a Repub!!!


John

and so should the million other messages in which Deanies call critics of Dean republicans, instead of adressing the topic

and Lieberman's statement is a republican line.

Stop with the childish name calling and realize that Lieberman's statement is fuel for the current regime's continuation.

"I am not going anywhere on my own merits, so let's try cutting down those ahead on me in the polls"

do the Repubes work for them do ya? Nice.

of course calling Dean-critics republicans seems to be the Deanies favorite pasttime so this charge/cop-out/refusal to adress the question was inevitable

I said he carries their water. What's your excuse?

a republican. much easier than actually discussing the problem isn't it?

I said you carry their water. And since you're a typically misinformed anti-Deanite, I support Dean and Clark and Kerry, and Kucinich and all the others, except the dipshit that you quoted in your post.

So let's see, you quote the most Republican shithook in the Dem party, therefore giving exposure and apparent agreement to his desperate and incorrect musing, and cry when you are called on it.

To all you anti-Deanites, you are more hysterical than the the Deanies that you so wish to destroy. Promote your guy and shut up. Quit trying to sabotage other campaings.

candidacy. Maybe you could use less inflammatory rhetoric next time you wish to characterize us.

no need to wait until next year, when the Dems call call each other terrorists NOW

:grr:

Hussein is a pig that deserved to be ousted..

I still don't think all of our dead can be justified since the real threat to US is still out there.

Wasn't this a fight for what/who was a threat to OUR safety.

don't let them change the rules on the past.

Please click here.

i'd like to leave lieberman out of it and discuss the problem.

And leave Lieberman out of it.

This is correct. If there had been no invasion:

• Saddam would remain in power;
• He would remain a brutal tyrant;
• He would remain a paper tiger;
• He would remain a contained threat;
• He would remain a deterrent to Islamism in Iraq, albeit a brutal one.

Instead, the invasion occured and:

• We have an occupation regime that no more has the welfare of the Iraqi people in mind than did Saddam;
• We have war profiteering by Bush's cronies;
• We have a terrorist presence in Iraq that was not there before;
• We have half of the army's combat divsions tied up on occupation duty instead of pursuing international terrorists.

There is no good way for supporters of the invasion, including Bush and his aides, to spin the it. All of the reasons given to justify the war were lies. That many members of congress, including several Democrats, repeated them either makes them look as dishonest as Bush or just gullible. The occupation remains a problem and Saddam's capture won't alleviate that. The Iraqi people want an end to a foreign occupation that is designed to steal their resources from them and place them in the hands of Bush's corporate cronies.

The case made by those who supported it has failed to connect the invasion of Iraq to the war on terror. It is an impossible task, because it had nothing to do with the war on terror. The Bushies knew this and his supporters should have.

In spite of today's events, those who continue to support Mr. Bush's war on terror uncritically do this country no good service.

451 American soldiers would still be alive, and over ten thousand would not be injured. America's allies would not be pissed off at us, and the "war on terror" would actually be showing signs of success.

..that the preceding post was the most sane statement made on this board in the last 5 days.

Skinner, can we somehow frame that quote and put it at the top of the page or something? :D

:bounce::kick::bounce:

Occassionally I come up with a good one ;-)

Lieberman should retract his statement and apologize for that...that was nothing more than an uprovoked attack on Howard Dean...

Leiberman...in my eyes...is pond scum in my eyes from now on...what a low thing to do...

(on edit: fixed subject line)

perspective, it's a gift. Cherish it....

believe it or not, Saddam's existence was NOT our biggest problem in the US, no matter what Fox and Viacom tell you...

:toast:

Holy Joe.

:thumbsup:

Another thread with nearly the exact same title, no???

:shrug:

Is he the only dictator loose in the world?
The most vicious (domestically)?
The most dangerous (to other states)?
The one who is most hospitable to terra-ists?

The problem we have is that more often than not the Left's ideas are not as "soundbitable" as the Right's. The aforementioned soundbite you mentioned is sure to be used by the Rove machine, and it's the kind of emotional appeal that can only be refuted by long, complicated, academic discourses. Idiot swing voters and Red State America are more likely to be influenced by that catchy soundbite than by any sensible rebuttal to it.

This will be repeated from now until the election.

Not to mention 10,000 plus dead Iraqis.

We would be focusing on the real war against terrorism isntead of the phantom threats of WMD's in Iraq...
We would have saved the lives of nearly 500 soldiers...
We would have saved $200 billion dollars...
We wouldn't have alienated our allies...
We wouldn't be in a neverending guerilla war...
We would have Saddam safely contained and posing no threat to the US...

themselves to sleep every night and thousands of Iraqi mothers doing the same.

Rove-Cheney called the war to make Bush look a "commander-in-chief" for election purposes and for the bottom line of Halliburton.

to the American people anyway, and if Iraq is still a mess by next November they won't even remember this little incident. I think most Americans have already forgotten about the killing of Uday and Qusay.

I don't think badly of my fellow Americans, I just think most of them have a fairly short attention span, and few of them will be personally affected by this in any way whatsoever. Frankly, I'm surprised that W didn't save this for closer to the election.

...that(with the exception of Joe Lieberman)if ANY of the Democratic nominees were President we wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now?

First response that I've gotten to a post since I've been here.:)

IMHO.

As picture after picture after picture of these soldiers flash on our screen a narrator says.

They told us it was about weapons of mass distraction. They told us he was getting nukes. They told us he working with Osama. They talked of mushroom clouds. Never did they say the goal was getting Saddam. Now they are lying to you about what their goal was. They are lying to you when they tell you we are safer. They are lying about their record, their motives, and their sucess. Yes they got SAddam. Good for them. The place is still a mess. The weapons didn't exist. The connection with Osama didn't exist. All that existed was Saddam.

Now Howard Dean's voice. Yes, If I had gotten my way it is possible Saddam would have cooperated with inspectors and saved his worthless hide. It is possible he would be ruling an Iraq which was proven to be no immediate threat to us as we now know it was. But we would also have all those lives back. 500 soldiers paid with their lives to get rid of Saddam. Now this President is cutting the benefits of those who were injured and won't go to the funerals of those who died. Saddam was a bad man but he wasn't worth the blood of our soldiers. He wasn't worth the loss of our prestigue. He wasn't worth us being reviled world wide. I live you with a story. In 1963 John Kennedy sent an emmisary to Charles De Galle to get his support during the Cuban Missle Crisis. He presented his case to De Galle and went to get some photos out of his brief case. De Galle interupted to ask what he was doing. When it was explained that he was getting photos to show De Galle what was going on and prove his case De Galle said "I have the word of the President and that is all I need put the photos back" Can anyone imagine that being the case with our current President? Yes, Maybe the awful Sadaam would be in power but our troops would be alive and our credibility would be intact.

Picture of Sadaam from today's news conference

Was he worth it?

I am Howard Dean and I approve this message because this election isn't about Sadaam it is about us.

Perhaps more detail than the average viewer can digest in a short spot, but without a doubt a great idea.
Please move it on to the right places.

:bounce::kick::bounce:

Are you going to present me some evidence that Saddam was involved in terrorist attacks against America or that he possessed WMD at the time of the invasion?

For a couple of hundred billion and a huge military force, I should hope we would be able to capture Saddam, but that doesn't excuse the fact that we were lied to concerning the justification for war. Saddam wasn't my problem and wasn't a threat to me.

International pressure would have eventually brought Saddam down. Instead the US taxpayer is footing a bill of $87-90 or 100 billion a year to rebuild Iraq and our soldiers are sitting ducks for guerilla forces. And the real war on terrorism, the actual perpetrators, of 9/11, has taken a backseat. Where is Bin-Ladden? and why is his network getting stronger? This phony war on Iraq took precious resources away from the real war on terrorism.

...to do something about the 2 to 3 million people that have died there. It's no secret that you supported going to war against Iraq although your justifications of your outpouring of pity for the Iraqis seem as shallow to me as those from the other side of the aisle.

So how many American lives and how much money should we spend to do something about a real human atrocity going on in the Congo and exactly what are you going to do about it?

was invading Iraq the best strategy for protecting
our country, no, its bogged down a large number of
troops, that could be used elsewhere ....

...was that worth the price of imprisoning Saddam? Who can say that the capture of one man...who was the operative of the Republicans and CIA for decades...is worth the life of even ONE child?

the would have the same attacks leveled at them....

And for some of the candidates above (actually one) that's the only thing they have going for them....

Instead of worrying about how to react to situations...why not work to create your own future....and the repugs be damned....

- 500+ dead troops
- thousands injured
- thousands of dead Iraqis
- many more living Iraqis mad at us
- most of the world mad at us
- our military weakened to the point we are readying the draft board

If someone wants to say we have the one thing (Saddam out), they have to say we have all this too.

Was it worth it? Especially when we could have made a human rights case against him, and didn't?

And we re-established ties with Equatorial Guinea recently, who has it's own dictator?