Editorial: Dean's right on Saddam

[RetroLounge]

Howard Dean must have wondered whether he stumbled into a Republican Party rally on Sunday in Iowa.

The former Vermont governor, who has emerged as the front-runner for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, was supposed to be taking part in debate with the eight other candidates to carry the party's banner into battle against Republican George W. Bush this fall. But, from the sound of what some of the other Democrats were saying, it appeared that they were more interested in beating Dean than Bush.

What else can explain the objections to Dean's assertion that the United States is no safer as a result of the capture last month of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein?

Those candidates who are attacking Dean on this issue look, and sound, like fools (bolding mine)

http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/editorial/64745.php

[Hep]

1. Amen

I mean, this is just one guy's opinion. But no one who thinks we're safer has given anything resembling a decent argument for it.

[Todd Smyth]

4. This is what Dean said >

"The capture of Saddam Hussein is good news for the Iraqi people and the world. Saddam was a brutal dictator who should be brought swiftly to justice for his crimes.... 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."

The following week we saw a color coded system designed by our own government telling us as clearly as possible that America was now less safe than before Saddam's capture.

[newyawker99]

10. Hi Todd Smyth!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[blm]

2. Qaddafi turning over his WMD arsenal already made the policy indisputable.

No matter that Qaddafi had been negotiating for 4 years to end the conflict with the US, the deal was timed to make it APPEAR that he turned over the arsenal BECAUSE he felt the pressure of what happened to Saddam.

Expect a few more to follow.

This is what the public will hear and to a certain extent it is right, BUT, it will be spun (successfully) into PROOF that Bush targeting Saddam was the right thing. Bush will just need more time to complete that task to make the world a safer place. The ads write themselves.

Dean already lost that argument. Qaddafi's move assured that. Anyone who doesn't SEE that is kiddiing themselves.

[Todd Smyth]

3. Khadafi had no WMD

This would be a lot more impressive to me if Khadafi actually had WMD. Why would the capture of Saddam Hussein frighten Khadafi if he has no weapons of mass destruction? Is he more likely afraid that he will be the next dictator framed with WMD and invaded by G. W. Bush? Or is it the many years of sanctions that have devastated his country and its ability to exist as a nation? I think it's both?

The eminent threat that George Bush was most concerned with before the war in Iraq was that the American people would find out what a financial disaster he had created in this country. The war created a distraction and excuse for the greedy financial policies Dubya had perpetrated to fleece the poor and middle class and buy off his richest friends and campaign contributors.

[blm]

5. Sorry. Public (media pawns) saw Qaddafi as dangerous dictator

Public believes Qaddafi folded because of Saddam capture.

YOU and a few honest journalists are not going to change that perception, especially if BushInc. gets another "dangerous leader" to follow suit.

That's called reality.

[RetroLounge]

7. Sorry, parrotting the Right Wing Talking Points

doesn't help anybody get elected.

Except Bush*

That's called reality.

[blm]

8. Blinding yourself to the reality of the matter is one-way ticket to defeat

Noone can afford to be that blind. I am alerting Dems to that reality, and NOT "parrotting right wing talking points" as you claim. Your attack on me is purely diversionary and matters not one iota.

[moez]

9. Exactly!

It may be trite, but it's true: perception is reality.

You don't have to like it but that won't change it....

[HFishbine]

11. Which candidate would you recommend

for the hopeless?

[blm]

12. The one who KNEW that deal was being negotiated for 4 years

before Saddam was captured. The only one to mention that fact when the news broke.

We need someone who knows these issues inside and out who can't be ruffled while on live TV by any of these surprise events that will pop up throughout this year. Someone who is prepared with a great depth of knowledge on EVERY issue.

Go with the STRONGEST candidate.

[blm]

14. Thanks for the clear head.

Forewarned is forearmed.

[RetroLounge]

17. What's your perception of this post?

by killbotfactory?

500 soldiers Dead
1000's wounded
Guerilla war with no end in sight
No WMD found
No threat to the US found
No ties to int'l terrorists found
We're stuck in a country that's salivating for a civil war
Orange Alert's
Sky marshall's
We're stuck with the billion dollar bill
Bush's unilateralist approach sets a horrible example for other countries
We're overextending our troops

Feel safer yet???

[RetroLounge]

18. Not an attack. Just truth.

The Right Wing are saying it.

You are agreeing because it suits your anti-dean agenda.

Which part of that isn't true?

[Cheswick2.0]

25. so we should knuckle under to lies

because the reality is that people don't know the reality?
Are you an official part of the Kerry campaign? Is this the official position of Kerrys camp, to deny reality and basically bullshit people because they are to dumb to handle the truth?

[killbotfactory]

26. Signs point to "Yes"

"Is this the official position of Kerrys camp, to deny reality and basically bullshit people because they are to dumb to handle the truth?"

[blm]

29. That's absurd. There are plenty of reasons that Saddam should go

and many of them have to do with regional dynamics. Just because Bush is handling it in the wrong way doesn't mean that every aspect of the effort is wrong.

And the point was that NO WAY will Howie be able to debate the points of his own declaration. He doesn't have the grasp of the region or level of understanding or the foreign policy chops.

[Capn Sunshine]

20. THis argument only nakes sense

if Kim Jong Il gives up HIS WMDs
He actually has them. Or , how about Ukraine? Russia? Georgia? Israel?
They actually HAVE WMDs.

THIS would be proof of the theory you proffer

anything else is specious bullshit.

[trapper914]

22. Not Exactly

Kim Jong Il is negotiating...he was negotiating well before we went into Iraq. I'll grant you, however, if a deal is struck between the U.S. and N. Korea, the spin from the right will be just as it is with regard to Qadaffi.

[blm]

30. Not to the public.

They only know the image of Qaddafi as brutal leader capable of anything. And don't underestimate what other plans are in the works for another leader to pump up their dog and pony show.

[Cheswick2.0]

21. so we should vote for the appeaser wing of the party

because the american public is just to damn stupid to understand the thruth?

[blm]

32. Vote for who can handle any situation KNOWLEDGEABLY.

Is that too much to ask.

And since Dean was for B-L and now for middle class taxcuts, and also supported Bush on Yucca Mt., and supported deregulation of electricity and kissed GOP ass for 11 years as Gov, you should be more careful about WHO is the real appeaser of the candidates.

[atreides1]

6. This is Safer...

1. US requiring Air Marshal's in all airliners entering US airspace
2. Threat Level Orange for the rest of this month and maybe even more
3. Libya now possibly changing it's mind
4. FBI telling local law enforcement to be wary of Almanacs

At which point are we safer since Saddam was caught.

Dean is right, the other candidates don't even have the courage to
admit that they were duped. And that the administration used their
fear of seeming to be weak on defense, and of getting re-elected to
get them to give Bush carte blanc with the war on terror.

[cthrumatrix]

13. orange and red from now until elections - fear based election

[killbotfactory]

15. Yep

500 soldiers dead
1000's wounded
Guerilla war with no end in sight
No WMD found
No threat to the US found
No ties to int'l terrorists found
We're stuck in a country that's salivating for a civil war
Orange Alert's
Sky marshall's
We're stuck with the billion dollar bill
Bush's unilateralist approach sets a horrible example for other countries
We're overextending our troops

Yep, we're not safer.

Kerry and Lieberman need to face reality.

[RetroLounge]

16. Please, don't confuse them with facts.

eom

[Kool Kitty]

19. Dean was right.

This doesn't make us safer. Hussein wasn't an immediate threat, no matter what this misadministration says, no matter how they spin it.

[RetroLounge]

23. Thank you for your clear-headed answer.

I couldn't agree more.

[trapper914]

24. And beware the spin...

...the right wing consistently misquotes Dean alleging he said, "the world is not safer," following Saddam's capture. I'll concede that those inside Iraq, Kuwait, and maybe Iran can breathe easier, so maybe the world is safer, but here in the states....status quo.

[Atlant]

27. Hear Hear! (NT)

[Hawkeye-X]

28. No doubt about that.

Dean has been consistent. What other candidates are consistent? Certainly not Clark, IMHO.

[Mairead]

31. I agree -- Dean's completely, *obviously* correct on this.

And it was worse than cheap --it was destructive to us-- to try to take a shot at him about it.

[burning bush]

33. Kick to the TOP

Dean rocks!

[quaker bill]

34. Dean is on target here

What did I hear about WMD today? That right, there never were any because they stopped making them about 10 years ago.

Eliminating something that was never a threat in the first place makes no one any safer.

[Printer70]

35. Capturing Saddam has not made us safer

Saddam had no WMD. Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11. Saddam showed no intent of attacking America.