More reckless rhetoric from Howard Dean today...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12207-2003Dec18.html

By ROSS SNEYD
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 18, 2003; 2:58 PM

MANCHESTER, N.H. - Presidential hopeful Howard Dean on Thursday defended his claim that the United States is no safer with Saddam Hussein in custody, contending that the "capture of one bad man" doesn't allow President Bush or Democrats to declare victory in the war on terrorism.

"I think the Democratic Party has to offer a clear alternative to the American people. The capture of one bad man doesn't mean the president and Washington Democrats can declare victory in the war on terrorism," he said. "The question is what is right, not what is popular."

...more...

------------------

I would like to know which Democratic candidates have "declared victory in the war on terrorism". The answer is, NOT ONE, Dr. Dean. An example of more reckless rhetoric from Dr. Dean.

notice the word CAN, not HAVE.

pointless drivel. can't you guys do any better?

It can also be seen as warning them not to declare victory.

This is hardly "reckless rhetoric."

Like "have you stopped beating your wife?"

you can't beat your wife.


But since when have facts gotten int he way of some good old desperate Dean bashing?

please contribute something positive. hardly reckless ,very true.

Is Candy Crawley (not sure if that is how you spell her name) on CNN about an hour ago.

I will tell you my thoughts as they were the same about an hour ago. If Dean is reckless I have not seen it yet.

Only a fool believes you can stop terra. Impossible. There is no such thing a justice either. Look what we have here in the uss of a. Poppy Cock.

Does Dean's demagoguic rhetoric EVER match the facts?

Does Dean Basher's demagoguic rhetoric EVER match the facts?

exaggerations and lies are just so much more dramatic. the 'angry man' can't me bothered with actual truth....not contoversial enough.

i have to ad mit...inever thought i'd see the day when being outlandish and controversial was considered a valid campaign strategy.

Truth is Reckless.

*props*

Sorry, but two different words with two VERY different meanings.

I CAN kill someone is different than saying I HAVE killed someone.

poopedy poop poop poop!!!!

And it does not state that a Democrat HAS declared such victory, although Lieberman has come close to doing just that.

The truth is that the capture of Saddam, and the show trial to come, will do nothing for American security -- just as the invasion of Iraq did nothing to improve American security, in fact detracted greatly from such security.

...prior to Joe Trippi realizing that being anti-war-lite was the only chance Dean had at winning the nomination.

I bet not. Since the fact is that Dean said many times, and has said since, that Saddam was a threat to the region but not an imminent threat tot he US and as such the unilateral pre-emptive war was not justified.

Care to cite the quote to show that you're not spinning a statement out of context?

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

Of course, it's taken out of context. In context, the message is different:

Bob Schieffer: But Iraq now says, over the weekend, that it will not accept tougher rules for inspection. Doesn't that make the case now for the administration?

GOV. HOWARD DEAN, D-VT: Not quite yet. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. The question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not yet made the case for that.

I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we've had over the weekend; that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it's got to be gone about in a very different way. It really is important to involve our allies, to bring other people into the coalition, to get a decent resolution out of the U.N. Security Council.

And if Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, we are clearly going to have to do something about it. But I'm not convinced yet and the president has not yet made the case, nor has he ever said, this is an immediate threat.

In fact, the only intelligence that has been put out there is the British intelligence report, which says he is a threat but not an immediate one.

September 29, 2002, Face the Nation
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/main523726.shtml

I find nothing objectionable. It is what all should be pointing out to the Sheeple

http://www.joe2004.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6510&news_iv_ctrl=1021

"The Connecticut senator, criticized by some Democrats for his pro-war stance, said that Saddam was a "ticking time-bomb" who could have brought more terror attacks to American shores.

"I believe I know evil. This guy was evil. I worried that the time would come that if we didn't knock him down, kick him out, that he would sponsor some horrific act against the American people, like Sept. 11," he said."

----------------------------------------------------------------
I think that can be reasonably interpreted as a declaration of a victory in the "war on terror"

And it starts with a Joe and ends with a man!

Ok that was lame.

I think it makes perfect sense. He's just saying that the capture of Saddam does not mean the end of our struggle. I think everybody needs to be reminded of that.

not a communication center from where he was organizing and coordinating the attacks.


The Iraqis fighting us are not fighting FOR Saddam, they are fighting AGAINST American occupation... as such Saddam being out makes no difference... they'll still keep fighting.

That made me wince.

:scared:

DTH

He put it in terms that Bush and his followers could understand. :)

Bush says the damnedest things and is Prez-erected. Dean attackers find some smoking fiction and whoopdee-do look out the man is no match for The Shrubinator.

Glad I have a sense of humor.

.

C'mon...can't you do better than attacking the front runner as we take our country back?

for people to read the same statement and come away with entirely different interpretations. Mine is that his comment is aimed at certain Washington dems (Lieberman) who are only too happy to praise shrub for everything from the economy, to the war on terra, to the smell of his farts. I think it was more of a "don't go hugging the opposition again" -- we are NOT any safer after capturing a man that the "president" himself said was NOT responsbile for 9/11.

Considering that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism, he is 100% right. Why is the truth called reckless rhetoric?

people are so used to lies succeeding, that the corollary is that the truth will fail and is reckless.
Makes me think of connecting two quotes

"the truth will set you free"
"first one person wants freedom and then the whole damn world wants freedom"

Well, we sure don't want the repugs or their DLC pals to get upset by something a Democrat says. My goodness, gracious. Why, some moderates might not like it!! They're mighty high-strung and touchy, you know. That Dean he's not like those NICE Democrats who wouldn't think of saying anything that might upset the president or those real good Americans on the radio.

What's next? Why, he might even say that our brave boys are over there in Eye-Rack killing them Ay-Rabs for no good reason.

I bet he doesn't even know the words to "God (you know the one with blue eyes and blond hair) Bless America"!!

but Dean chooses to smear all "Washington Democrats". It's just the usual from Dean - pumping up his faux anti war credentials by attacking the party he is a member of. The faithful, as usual, swallow it whole.

Seems to me a lot of "Washington Dems" voted for it didnt they?

did not constitute "support" for the war, although Dean would have you believe this.

It would be nice if the lead up to the invasion was the black and white proposition Howard Dean and many of his supporters would like it to be. It would make political decisions so much easier - easier than actually doing research, reading floor speeches, even trying to untangle Dr. Dean's conflicting statements of that time.

If you have truly come to DU to educate yourself, rather than to just blindly support a candidate, the lead up to the invasion and the real positions of the candidates is a good place to start.

Unless you are a total moron, you knew what bush was going to do.

so I choose not to characterize them as "morons". We don't know what they were told; we don't know what lies were foisted on them. Someone in the Congress can't let their personal feelings toward someone else effect what may be a decision concerning the nation's security.

Your animosity is more properly directed at Bush, he is the one responsible for this war.

I crossed him off my list long ago. For me it is: Clark, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards. In that order.

the man who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11"

Daily Show.

I think Dean's comments just about sum up where I am on this.

Everybody else thinks the war on terror is over. The wise doctor is the only one who knows better. Where would we be without the doctor to straighten everything out for us.

:eyes:

I just heard that on Fox, they were gloating over Dean's 'fabrications' on this. All three of them dumped on the notion that Saddam's capture didn't make the US safer. Even the mediawhores who usually pump Dean up.

Barnes said Dean knows what he's saying isn't true but he's playing to the base. Sheesh.

.

Golly whiz!! What's next?? Maybe that other paragon of truth, Rush Limbaugh might mention it that Dr. Dean said that the "war on terror" isn't over and that those gloating over the capture of one guy are wrong to act like it is!

I loathe FOX and their pundits who pumped up Dean most of the year.

All we wanted was an excuse to throw a party, but that mean Dean machine ruined all our plans. Damn!

The Washington Democrats have got to stop this.

Where is the "reckless" part?

I see nothing wrong with this statement.

You'll get a better idea of what someone says if you read the context in which it was said, rather than a snippet that can have its meaning twisyed by unscrupulous opponents:

Let me be clear: My position on the war has not changed.

The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost. An administration prepared to work with others in true partnership might have been able, if it found no alternative to Saddam's ouster, to then rebuild Iraq with far less cost and risk.

As our military commanders said, and the President acknowledged yesterday, the capture of Saddam does not end the difficulties from the aftermath of the administration's war to oust him. There is the continuing challenge of securing Iraq, protecting the safety of our personnel, and helping that country get on the path to stability. There is the need to repair our alliances and regain global support for American goals.

Nor, as the president also seemed to acknowledge yesterday, does Saddam's capture move us toward defeating enemies who pose an even greater danger: al Qaeda and its terrorist allies. And, nor, it seems, does Saturday's capture address the urgent need to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the risk that terrorists will acquire them.

The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will help keep our soldiers safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.

Addressing these critical and interlocking threats terrorism and weapons of mass destruction -- will be America's highest priority in my administration.