Why Did Dean Back Down Over Saddam?

This is not a candidate thread, and I'd appreciate it if it didn't turn into one. I've been bothered about this, and the other thread about the GOP defining the debate brings it to a head.

Is there no one around besides me who actually believes that we are not "safer" since Hussein was captured?

I think Dean was right and proper to say we are no safer. He could have expanded it to say it made absolutely no difference in our safety.

But, NOOOOOOOoooooooo... He might as well have eaten those kittens the way he was forced to backtrack.

Same with the Osama comments. Of course we have to try people before convicting and punishing them. Why take his words and beat him over the head without a word in his defense? Who says we shouldn't try Osama, or anyone else accused of a crime? Why is Dean crucified for this basic observation? Why is he forced to parse and backtrack?

MoveOn is being trashed over the Hitler ad, and absolutely no one is standing up for them. Massive calls are out there for them to apologize. Apologize for what? Someone submitted an offensive ad? More offensive than Willy Horton, which actually did run?

There are some very wrong assumptions being made with these complaints about things we are saying. The assumptions are that we are wrong and should be ashamed of ourselves.

Then we go ahead and apologize, with our heads down in some hole.

We have nothing to apologize for. Dean has nothing to apologize for. MoveOn has nothing to apologize for.

But we are still apologizing.

We are not wrong to say these things, and it's about time we got up and said so!

And said some more of these things.

And demand a few apologies for lies, deception, and corruption from the other side.

and he has been correct

Now I also will say this for Dean, he stood for the process of law
and he clarified that in the debate

At least that is the way I read it.

As to letting the GOP define teh debate, you are correct, we have to avoid doing it, ALL THE TIME.

to apologize himself right out of the race. And I couldn't agree more - he is making the FATAL mistake of letting the pubs set the tone of his debates. He. or Joe Trippi, need to re-think this big-time, or Dean is dead in the water.

Is Gore tied to MoveOn?
I ask, because he let the Pubs set the tone of his candidacy - so I wonder if he has anything to do with letting the pubs backing him down.

I could rattle on and on about this subject - it is so important - we Dems will lose the election - definitely - if we keep on in this direction.

Last night on Crossfire, James Carville challenged Gillespie over the Moveon.org ad by showing the add the Republicans ran against Daschle comparing him to Saddam Hussein, and further challenged him with Cheney's refusal to disavow the ad when directly questioned on it.

Gillespie simply said the Republicans never ran that ad, and the subject was effectively dropped, but Gillespie went on to express outrage at the Bush/Hitler comparision, demanding apologies from every Democrat under the sun.

Carville wilted like a snowflake in the desert. It disgusts me. We need voices in the party that will not back down to these outrageously hypocritical positions the Republicans take, and will take the fight to them.

On Edit: BTW, the reason I am interested in Dean as a candidate is that he was the first one to appear on the radar screen to openly and directly challenge the administration on it lies when the rest of the Democratic party were spineless and cowering. I also admire Kucinich for voting his concience on the IWR while the rest of the Democratic party played Repuke-lite

If it wasn't the Republicans, who did it? Move On is an independent organization that is usually on the Democratic side of issues, correct?

The RNC plays the game of "we didn't do it and we don't know who was responsible for it", which is ludicrous. Who can believe for a second that ads for Senate and House seats are not run through the RNC for approval. Carville knows this and layed down.

Furthermore, he was ineffective at making your point the MoveOn.org is independent of the Democratic party, and have the right of free speech.

He should have been pounding the table with Gillespie and shoving it back in his face that citizens have the right of free speech, and that in contrast to the Republican shill organizations that get funding from the RNC to pay TV ad time to put out their attack ads that make claims just as controversial as the ones in question, the ads produced independently by free citizens without funding from any source, that the ads hadn't even been shown on TV, and their presence on a web site has nothing to do with party affiliation.

over Saddam? I must have missed that one.

I'm sick of some Democrats hiding from the term "liberal" like it's a bad thing, or divisive label. I say shout from it from the mountaintops! Why would anyone be ashamed of being liberal? I've never understood this. Especially Democrats.

I agree. No apologies. No backing down.

As far as I know Dr. Dean has not backed down on either statement. He has in fact, restated the points he made on several occasions. He is right on both issues you raise and has no intention of backing down. Do you have a link?

Your Rep. counterparts and their media hacks never apologize, no matter what the facts or how wrong they are.

Our Dems back down when they need to keep pushing the envelope.