Dean's Speech on Iraq Brings Rebuttals From Rivals

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

Dean's Speech on Iraq Brings Rebuttals From Rivals
By JODI WILGOREN and RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD

OS ANGELES, Dec. 15 — Howard Dean declared on Monday that "the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer," provoking an avalanche of new attacks from rivals who have seized on Sunday's surprise news as a way of redrawing the foreign policy debate in the Democratic presidential campaign..."The difficulties and tragedies which we have faced in Iraq show the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at the extraordinary cost, so far, of $166 billion," he said. "The capture of Saddam does not end our difficulties from the aftermath of the administration's war to oust him." Dr. Dean, too, devoted significant chunks of his speech to the proliferation issue, saying he would also triple American financing to $30 billion over 10 years to combat unconventional weapons around the world, and ask allies to contribute the same amount...foreign policy (should) be guided by "the legitimacy that comes from the rule of law, the credibility that comes from telling the truth," "first-rate intelligence undiluted by ideology" and strength through "robust alliances and vigorous diplomacy."<snip>



THE COMMENTS:

Lieberman:"If he truly believes the capture of this evil man has not made America safer, then Howard Dean has put himself in his own spider hole of denial...I fear that the American people will wonder if they will be safer with him as president."


Clark: "The entire resistance in Iraq was not run by a pathetic ex-dictator hiding in a hole,...(the capture of Mr. Hussein was) only one step (toward success in Iraq, which would take) tens of billions of dollars," "enormous stamina" and renewed cooperation between the United States and Europe.

Edwards: while Mr. Hussein's capture "did not end the danger in Iraq," it had "kicked the door wide open for all of us to hope that sooner and not later democracy will thrive for the Iraqi people...."Prosecuting Saddam is not like restoring electricity or picking up garbage — it is one of the most politically sensitive and complex tasks facing a post-Saddam Iraq....America does not need a new doctrine of pre-emption; we need a new strategy of prevention."


Gepheart: "We can't beat George Bush by playing politics with foreign policy...We've got to stand up for what we think is right. That's what I've always done and that's what I'll always do."

Kerry: Democrats "deserve more than" a "foreign policy speech written by someone else."..."In a world where terrorist threats loom large, and they do, our fellow Americans are looking for real leadership...To earn your trust, we have to show through our own actions, and our own experiences, that our approach to national security and foreign policy is credible, legitimate, and the best way to defend our nation."

Each day I get more and more disgusted with the crop of sorry kiss-ass Dems--particaulraly Kerry, Gephardt, Holy Joe and Edwards. Dean is absolutely right--and it's interesting that these putzs slam him without disproving his point, but simply that he has no experience. He's smarter than all of you toads combined!

Dean always sees the other side of the coin. Not like Dem/bushistas and pundits. I can lean Clark but I see Clark as having bushista bagage that will be used in ads.

Sounds like he is agreeing with him. Am I missing something?

Clark has been saying the same thing broadcasted from The Hague since it happened. It's good the bastard was caught, but it doesn't change a thing about Clark's views on the war and GWB. This is what Dean is saying, too.

Re: Paula's Saddam w/Dem-in power or in prison? Clarks says prob. out of power via different process


Man, I just like Clarks retort to CNN's Paula Zahn when she tried the Bush/Rove/Lieberman line that Saddam would still be in power if Dems had been making the decision.

As noted in the ANCNote: Clark appeared on CNN where Paula Zahn asked Clark directly: "If you had been President during this time, where would Saddam Hussein be — in power or in prison?" Clark responded that Hussein would "have probably been brought out of power, in most likely a different process."

AS DU's L.A.dweller noted: Hypocritical question considering that republicans put Saddam in power in the first place.

:-)

I cannot toe the line with Dean on this one.

Saddam Hussein's presence in the middle east was a root cause for much of the violence of the past few decades. Forget about why he was put in power in the first place. From what I have seen and read, most of the folks in the Middle East are delighted by his capture and view it as a possible light at the end of the tunnel. Forget politics: this is good for the poor people of Iraq and the middle east who have been living in a fear in large part created by Saddam for years.

If the Middle East is safer without Saddam, the world is safer without Saddam, and hence, the United States is safer without Saddam. If the people of the Middle East feel hope, that is a wonderful thing. It is those without hope that have fueled the hatred and violence over there that has in turn made the world more dangerous. If Middle Easterners feel hope for the first time in their life because the ominous presence and dark shadow of Saddam has been removed, peace in the region may actually be attained.

I, for one, feel relief that I will never have to see Saddam Hussein threaten the United States ever again. He really used to freak me out during the late 90's and early 00's.

It is at this time where the true intentions of the Bush regime will be seen. If he makes a point to build international support for the peaceful reconstruction of Iraq, and worked towards repairing diplomatic wounds, he will be a very difficult incumbant to beat. If, however, his thirst for power becomes ever greater, and creates more wars and uses this Iraqi power vacuum to gain more power, then he must be stopped.

He had no WMD's

He had no power whatsoever, he wwas virtually isolated in the region.

He NEVER was a threat to us.

This ill-conceived vanity war for the Bushes took away resources and intelligence from actually figthing terorrism. We are much less safe becasue of this major blunder.

Listen to what the people in and around Iraq have to say about this man.

IF, and I say IF, removing Saddam makes the Middle East safer, because a large component of fear has been plucked from the region, then the United States is certainly safer. This is a small world we live in.

In either case, I only have to comment that you spoke like a true Republican.

Saddam could have been removed without our illegal invasion. We have invited unrest into the region, whicih is our own doing. The Middle East is now a hotbed of terrorist activity that did not exist before this war.

Please get a history and/or geography lesson. Quick!

I think if our candidates focus on those as well disaster is waiting.

The fact that you don't feel safer because of Saddam's capture because he did not have ICBM's aimed for your backyard pool before the war is spoken like a true American, and obviously someone not from the Middle East.

I am American as well, but from what I have read, Saddam DID create an overbearing amount of fear in the region. Fear destroys hope, lack of hope promotes terror.

This is the parallel I am currently drawing and it makes complete sense to me. You may say it is short sighted and not true all you want. But, to me, it really makes a lot of sense at this particular moment.

Actually, any debates on the issues are rather futile, as we will never know the true results of the recent events for many decades in the future.

Hold on. Please explain this to me:
"The Middle East is now a hotbed of terrorist activity that did not exist before this war."

So what you are asserting is that the PLO, Hizbullah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, PFLP, Muslim Brotherhood (et.al.) ALL sprang up in response to the Iraq War? The war that happened earlier this year, 2003? 9 months ago?

Please get a history lesson and/or geography lesson. Quick!

Dean supporters seem a bit thin skinned, like Bushies, if you say anything they didn't come up with themselves or agree with. They tend to get very hostile and defensive.

This attitude, which in my opinion, generally reflects the attitude of the candidate himself, is why I believe they would be an election disaster in November.

If we let no more than a handful of liberals in Iowa and New Hampshire, and a media that loves a good show (they did the same for Gore, until the debates).. Pick our nominee for the Presidency, then I guess we deserve what we get.

After all, some of us did go to the polls and vote for Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, Carter knowing we were just putting one tiny pebble to try to dam a river of disaster.

I'm reminded of the late 90's when "thin skinned" companies rose to power because of the power of the Internet. I hope I'm not right.

Just towing your candiate's line of the day.

I am more disgusted with the candidates who cannot stand up for anything--who are so afraid of speaking out that they say nothing at all!

We are so screwed because of this ill-conceived war, and maybe when 9-11 Part two comes around, people like you will wake up.

"Can I kiss your ass Mr. pResident? I think it'll get me elected!"

Let's see Gephardt accomplished WHAT as minority leader?

Oh yeah, he saw his party fall farther into the minority.