Memo to Joseph Lieberman: "If Howard Dean Were President"

[David Zephyr]

Memo to Joseph the Warmonger Lieberman:

Joe, you forgot to mention in your pathetic comments about Howard Dean, that If Howard Dean Were President:

Nearly 500 American young people would still be alive. Nearly 500 families would still be whole.

Over 5,000 American young people would still have their eyes, their limbs and their organs.

Over 100,000 Iraq citizens would still have their lives, their eyes, their limbs and their organs.

The U.S. would have $200 Billion less in the national deficit.

The U.S. would have either found Osama bin Laden or be very close to doing so.

The U.S. would still have an ally or two left in the world.

[realFedUp]

1. I second that.

Spending billions to get one guy isn't smart financing.

[Zynx]

2. I agree.

Lieberman, and the rest of the war supporters, can stick it up their ass. Sure, we can topple any regime, but is it worth it?

[dolstein]

3. Let me ask you a simple question . . .

What price would you be willing to pay, in terms of $$$, American lives and public standing around the world in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power?

Personally, I think the Iraqi people would gladly sacrifice 100,000 lives to remove a dictator who has caused the deahts of over a million Iraqi citizens. It's sad to think that America has become a country where people are unwilling to make sacrifices in order to rid the world of a tyrant. I guess people were simply made of sterner stuff back in the 1940's.

I'd also like to point out that your cost-benefit analysis is woefully incomplete, since you ignore all the potential benefits of a stable, democratic Iraq. While those benefits have to be discounted, they clearly have a value greater than zero.

[thebigidea]

6. you should go ask 100,000 Iraqis to sacrifice their lives, then

sick that you can quantify the amount of innocent lives Hussein is "worth."

Where did you pick up that skill?

[ithacan]

33. Americans are really good at sacrificing the lives of others

so that they can feel good about themselves.

[eissa]

7. Easy to say

when you're not the one sacrificing. I have family living in Iraq and thank God every day they didn't "gladly sacrifice" so * could get his hands on some oil.

[thebigidea]

8. there's still plenty of time for them to die in the name of freedom

with our wonderful president and his freedom-loving agenda, why - your family runs the risk of dying nearly EVERY DAY!

God Bless America! And God Bless Freedom!

[eissa]

19. Sure, why not?

I mean come on....they live in a third world country; is there really any reason to live? Yeah, my cousin is married and has two beautiful children, but who cares about that! She should just have her brains blown up for "freedom"! Or at least sacrifice one of her kids -- you know, "those people" don't value human life like we do.

[David Zephyr]

10. Johnny on the Spot, Dolstein. You're the Number Three Poster!

Crank up the volume as Dolstein whines, "Stand By Your Man.'

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Was that what the soldiers were looking for in Saddam's hair and mouth? The missing WMD's?

The war was for oil, based on lies.

How long before Joe Lieberman gets out his war pompoms for the U.S. to invade Syria, Dolstein?

[Cascadian]

37. And Joe will support the next war.

Trust me. He is a big time supporter of PNAC. Dolstein, why oh why do see only one side of the Middle Eats issue? Don't you get bored?

John

[annagull]

12. Here is my price: NO American lives

No American life is worth the capture of a tinhorn dictator from a country that was no more a threat to us than Zimbabwe. As for our public standing in the world, are you serious? We are now one of the most hated nations in the world, even by our historical allies. In 1940, Hitler attacked nation after nation, gobbling up whole countries for the Nazis. Saddam went after one nation, 10 years ago, and was beaten back by a REAL coalition of countries, and was put into a box. When Iraq falls into civil war, which many forsee from this point, you may want to recalculate your cost/benefit analysis. Democracy comes from the inside of a nation, not from the boot of occupation.

[arcane1]

13. we are a long way from "stable", friend

and it's easy to sit here and say "I think the Iraqi people would gladly sacrifice 100,000 lives", but OBVIOUSLY the Iraqis didn't think so...

[thebigidea]

14. it almost sounds like something Richard Perle would say!

"It is not too far-fetched to postulate that the Iraqi people would gladly lay down their lives in the hundreds of thousands to secure freedom... they are a simple people, but can we really say that liberty isn't good enough for them?"

to which Russert would nod his head in agreement.

[arcane1]

17. chilling, isn't it...?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. Show me a stable democratic Iraq before you tout that as a benefit

It would be in the Iraqi's best interests to remove a vile dictator. We have only called him that for one decade...prior to that we were, of course, arming him.

[Bertha Venation]

18. a stable, democratic Iraq, IMO, is a pipe dream

I realize my parallel isn't completely valid, but just consider for a moment the numerous peace accords that have been discussed in the middle east -- just since I was five years old, since 1968.

Narrow it down and look at the last three years in Palestine and Israel.

Honestly, do you think it is possible to have a stable, democratic Iraq? I don't. There's a dynamic in the middle east that we don't have here. They have tribes & clans that can never live together in peace.

I'm glad SH is out of power. But I despise how he was deposed -- look at the cost, and see that a "stable, democratic Iraq" is a pipe dream.

Still, may I be wrong.

[Zynx]

21. I'll give you my price, but you must give yours.

Given the lack of a threat Iraq posed, the cost I would be willing to take on is nothing resembling WWII like you seem to suggest it should be. However, there is always some value in removing a dictator, but here is what it would be worth to me:

$10-15 billion TOTAL
50-100 American lives
Maybe a couple thousand Iraqi lives

What is it worth to you?

[oldcoot]

24. Is Saddam Hussein the only evil tyrant?

Do you think that the United States should remove all the evil tyrants from their positions of power? How many Americans do you think that the U.S. government should sacrifice to achieve that goal?
Even during the 1940s Americans were not interested in removing every evil dictator (Joseph Stalin) from power.

Since I have seen no real evidence that Bush has any desire to turn Iraq into a democracy, I do not think David's analysis is incomplete. Yes, Bush has talked about liberating Iraq and bringing democracy to Iraq. However, actions speak louder than words and Bush has proven that he is not interested in a democratic Iraq. For example, the U.S. military cancelled municipal elections in Iraq last June. If Bush is not going to trust the Iraqi people to make local and relatively minor decisions, what makes you think that he will let Iraqis make major decisions such as who will run their country (and control that oil)?

[Polemonium]

28. other simple questions

Do you really believe this was the only way to remove Sadam from power? Is your imagination that myopic? Further, if we're going to play the world police force as you apparently advocate, shouldn't we have the support of the citizens of the globe, or at least the UN Security Council? What about the other dictators, the several human rights abuses going on in places like Africa? We should no doubt complete the required human cost-benefit analysis and then unilaterally take care of business. Even when there is a positive outcome we have to question the motivations leading to that outcome and the reason for the obvious double foreign policy double standards.

Do you really see a stable Iraq coming out of all of this? What is that assumption based on?

Putting human lives into cost-benefit analysis is done usually only by people who are not getting shot at.

[thebigidea]

29. notice we have not a single "simple answer" from him

that 100,000 "grateful sacrifices" line is absolutely indefensible. Blegh.

[eissa]

4. Thanks, David

I'm posting this on my office door so all my stupid repuke co-workers can suck on it. Sorry, all their frikken gloating is just making me :grr:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. normally i am against bashing democrats

but liebermans comments about howard dean just begged for it...i personally wish kuchinich would win the primaries but realize that deal in all probability will win..liebermans comments were harsher than most repubs have been today

[spooky3]

9. welcome to DU, Lionesspriyanka!

[Bertha Venation]

20. welcome to DU

:hi:

[David Zephyr]

25. Welcome to the DU!

Lieberman only hurts himself further by this opportunistic whine.

[newyawker99]

26. Hi lionesspriyanka!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[slinkerwink]

27. welcome to DU!!!

:hi:

[nannygoat]

11. Oh, and Holy Joe, just because

Howard Dean didn't want to start a full-fledged, preemptive invasion of Iraq, it doesn't mean he wouldn't or couldn't have chosen other means of reaching the same end (i.e., removal of Saddam from power). After all, there were other options besides this war such as continuing the inspections and beginning negotiations either on our own, with our allies, or through the UN. Your limited tunnelvision makes me think you wouldn't be a very good president... Oh, and weren't there reports of Saddam being on the verge of surrendering himself, reports that * conveniently ignored? Anybody remember this--it came out a few weeks ago.

I'm not a Dean supporter yet(!) but it makes me SO sick when people think this was the ONLY way...

[DrFunkenstein]

15. A Good Argument For Kerry

That few Deanies were willing to make when it didn't suit them.

I think a more interesting point would be "If Dean were a Senator..."

Judging by the comments Dean made at the time, I'm not sure Deanies would like the answer.

[Zynx]

22. Please. Give it up. That argument has been thrashed many times.

[DrFunkenstein]

35. They Why Don't You Thrash It?

I'm a reasonable guy. Make your case so I can shoot it down.

[buddhamama]

23. let's revisit this

in a years time and see how much further we have sunk.

how many more lives have either been taken or destroyed,etc.etc.

this may come as shock, being the leftist-whatever that i am, but i have, for the most part, stuck up for Joe or refrained from negavtive comments.

after yesterday though :mad:

[cirej2000]

30. I don't know what either of these guys would've done...

But I think that Joe's statements were really out of place. Why pick now to attack Dean. At least Dean represents the true face of today's Democratic Party.

We don't want wars, we do want to be part of the UN, we do want to work with France and Germany, we don't want Israel running amok in the Middle East, we do want free healthcare, we don't want big business taking away money from our schools.

Joe is just a NeoCon in poor Democrat's clothing.

Who knows what Howard Dean would've done after 9/11. Maybe we would've given the Taliban more time to turn over Osama, like they said they were going to do. Maybe NO further deaths would have occurred after 9/11.

All I know now is we've got to get Dean in for 2004 so we can get our troops out of Iraq, give the Pakistanis a chance to get Osama and turn him over to the world court and start to mend our ties with our historical Allies like France and Germany!

Can you do that Joe? I didn't think so!

If we learned anything from the 20th century...it's that war only breeds more war! Lieberman is a dinosaur...Dean is the man for the 21st century...

[reknewcomer]

31. The U.S. would have either found Osama bin Laden or be very close to doing

I'd really like to see some evidence to back that one up. Any chance you have a link to provide some assurance of that statement?

[Sterling]

32. How about no 9-11 at all.

Unless Dean is as connected to OBL and the core issues involved in 9-11 as Bush?

[DrFunkenstein]

36. Does Dean Have Superpowers of Some Sort?

9/11 was not a response to the election of George W. Bush, and it is unlikely that anyone could have connected the dots in the given climate between intelligence agencies.

And although Dean is more of a multilateralist than Bush, that is hardly a guarantee that he would have found Osama. We may have been more comfortable with the means of the search, but you can't guarantee successful ends.

[David Zephyr]

42. No Democrat Would Not Have Discarded Hart's Report & Gore's Report.

Or the warnings of Madeleine Albright and President Clinton.

Nor would any of the nine Democrats read a Goose story while thousands of Americans died.

The only superpower needed is the one to make the current President release his Daily Briefings on what he knew prior to 9/11.

And as Sterling so aptly points out, Dean's family does not have the decades old relationships that the Bush family does with the bin Ladens.

[David Zephyr]

40. Sterling, You Always Get Right Down to It.

bin Ladens & the Bushes. :hi:

[mzmolly]

34. Right ON DZ!

:toast:

[Cleita]

38. Lieberman's Dean bashing is getting really boring.

I wish he'd drop out. There was an article in the LA Times today that said he couldn't meet his last payroll for his campaign workers, so he's not getting the money support that he needs. If he gets the nomination, then I really am going to believe there is some election fraud going on. I don't know of one Democrat except for one or two here at DU who plan to vote for him in the primaries. He wouldn't be much better than Bush as President from what I have gathered about how he would conduct foreign affairs. IMHO.

[Junkdrawer]

39. Wish someone would have given that answer to that shill Paula Zahn...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=914353&mesg_id=917195&page=

[cirej2000]

41. I'll give her an answer...put her over my knee and

:spank:

[mjv135]

43. Make room for Clark

O.K. Hasn't Liebermans biggest beef with Clark been that he was for the war, but now that he's running he says he's against it? So why is he on Hardball now saying that if CLARK and Dean had their way, Saddam would still be in power? Does this mean he's finally admitting that Clark WAS against going into Iraq?

[David Zephyr]

44. Gladly Making Room for Clark.

Kucinich, Dean, Sharpton, Mosely-Braun and Clark all expressed opposition to the "pre-emptive" invasion of Iraq. And I think I listed them in the degree of their opposition.

I would like to also give credit to the other former candidate, Senator Graham, who correctly opposed this war.

So, I'm not suprrized that Lieberman is now attacking Clark, as well.