Kudos to Howard Dean

Congratulations to Hoiwar Dean for continuing his anti-war stance in the face of Saddam's capture. His consistent position on the war is to be admired. Contrast this to the shameful remarks made by Kerry and Leiberman after Deans speech yesterday.

Leiberman said that if Dean had his way, Saddam would still be in power. Well, Mr. Lieberman, I guess this means that you would be willing to wage pre-emptive wars on at least a dozen other countries?

Kerry said that he disagreed with Governor Deans remarks.

These musing by the two senators are nothing more than cheap attempts to make political hay on the back of Saddam's capture, and bolster sinking campaigns.

Thank you Governor Dean for having the courage of your convictions.

please fix your spelling:

Hoiwar Dean

hoho's MTP interview?

:P Nah... why do that when cherry picking will do.

:puke: as Dean did his usual waffling.

I was blown away by it. He looked and sounded real "presidential"...

I caught the rebroadcast on CSPAN last night....other than the fact that during his speech he looked at his notes quite a bit he reminded me a lot of Clinton.

What I liked best was :

NO STUTTERING OR "UMMM....EHHMMMM" DURING HIS RESPONSES...


I'm about 90 percent convinced who I'm voting for.

I trust Dean, it's as simple as that. He's the only one besides John Edwards who has interested me, and my interest in John Edwards is purely shallow, I like his looks, not his positions.

I was impressed by his honesty when he admitted in an interview that he probably could have served in the military.

You'll find that Edwards does have the most clearly defined positions and plans of all th candidates out there.

Don't take my word for it, just ask Joe Podesta:

But if today's Democrats were looking for policy depth and specificity,
Dean would be running near the back of the pack. "If he's got a positive
program, no one knows what it is," says Clinton's former chief of staff 
John Podesta, who has started a liberal think tank. "If you look at 
who's got the best stuff out there, it's (John) Edwards. But who knows, 
and who cares?"

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,561439,00.html

It's obvious that rhetoric is what is driving the campaigns nowadays.

while Dean goes after Bush...relentlessly.

"Well, Mr. Lieberman, I guess this means that you would be willing to wage pre-emptive wars on at least a dozen other countries?"

Dean endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war.

Dean endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war.

He did (does) indeed.

In self-defense, or in cases of imminent and substantial threats to U.S. national security.

The Dean foreign policy statement is well worth reading.

But it's sure to hear him confirm it.

I have to say, having read a summary of Dean's remarks in the NYTimes today,

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/16/politics/campaigns/16DEMS.html?hp

that my support for him has increased. All the other candidates, except Kucinich, who I cannot support because he cannot possibly win, seem to eager to stand in the circle of pathological patriotism where everyone is dancing around celebrating Saddam's capture, which was only a matter of time. Dean, though, stuck to his views, the only consistent candidate in the Democratic array. He may not get there, but he is clearly the only true alternative to Bush worship that has a chance.

You wrote "Leiberman said that if Dean had his way, Saddam would still be in power. Well, Mr. Lieberman, I guess this means that you would be willing to wage pre-emptive wars on at least a dozen other countries?"

Lieberman is right isn't he about Saddam still being in power?

...you know, the ones coming home without limbs, badly burned, emotionally scarred. Was it worth their suffering to take out a third-rate dictator who was, as was ultimately proven, little-to-no threat to the US? Does Saddam's capture magically lead us to the WMD's? Does it make the rest of the world suddenly "appreciate" the US?

The answer is no...

But then again, they're all immensely more qualified and moral than Bush. No matter who gets the nomination, it will be a tough slog. The rightwing whore media will have it in for any democrat, as evidenced by their desparate propping up of this moron for the last 2 years.

As much as I like these candidates, there's not a JFK among them (as yet) But hell, even JFK barely squeaked by in 1960, while Johnson & Nixon both won handily (shows just how good Americans are at judging character)

Dean is NOT necessarily a problem at the ballot box, and there's little indication that anyof the other guys would be a silver bullet. I understand the enthusiasm behind Clark, and he'd be a fine nominee, but his lackluster campaigning so far makes me wonder just how bad he wants it. The nominee will have to fight tooth and nail this time.

"This was not a war on tyranny, it's was a war on terror." Eric somebody on MSNBC ;)

Is getting Saddam out of power, when he was not a threat to the US, worth the lives of 500+ American soldiers, untold thousands of Iraqi citizens, and the siphoning of our treasury for the rebuilding of the Iraqi infrastructure which was destroyed as a result of our bombing? From a simple cost/benefit analysis, I'd say no.

but we would have bin Laden. You remember, the guy who, unlike Saddam, actually attacked the United States?

That needs to be the Democratic message. Osama bin Laden attacked the United States, but Bush went after Saddam, a minor regional threat, instead. Bin Laden is still out there.

Dean is right, capturing Saddam doesn't make American any more safe. We were just as safe when Saddam was sitting in his palace watching his tanks rust.

He wasn't threatening the world, let alone the USA, and his "glory days" as a dictator were behind him.

Would he have continued killing his political enemies? No doubt. Would that body count have come near the thousands of innocent Iraqis killed by bush's little war? No way.

If SH was in power, 500 American/coalition troops would still be alive. Thousands of coalition forces wouldn't be physically maimed and emotionally scarred for life. There might be about $150 billion laying around to rebuild THIS country. Terrorism wouldn't be as widespread either, and the rest of the world might not hate us so intensely.

In fact, when you look at the PRICE paid to get a US-funded penny-ante dictator out of power and into custody, one can make the arguement quite easily that the world is NOT better off having SH out of power.

One only falls for the RW "we're better off without SH" position if you 1) ignore the above and/or 2) assume that bush's illegal war built on lies was the only option open to deal with SH...which is a little bit like thinking that the only way to discipline an unruly child is 30 lashes with a leather belt. There were plenty of other options available, but the neo-cons opted for the costliest, bloodiest and least-effective option available.

Now we're stuck with it...and its aftermath.

Well said!!

How does the capture of Saddam change the facts surrounding the war? Does Saddam's capture suddenly make the war justified?

I'm stunned at the naivety of those who believe that, now Saddam is in custody, that the war is all but over.

If Leiberman believes this, then it proves he's not fit to be President...

Unfortunately, I wasn't surprised by Lieberman's comment. I wish I was, but...

I was a bit surprised by Kerry, however. Exactly what does Kerry disagree with Dean about?

:toast:

.