|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
klg
|
|
response 445 of 536:
| 
Dec 17 03:19 UTC 2003 |
Oh, yeah, Mr. richard??? "Never inconsistent"???? What say you to
this:
Thecarpetbaggerreport.com
December 11, 2003
Exactly how anti-war was Howard Dean?
. . .Dean's statements about the war in Iraq warrant a closer
look. . . Dean's record is not as clear as the conventional wisdom
would have us believe.. . .
On the September 29, 2002, episode of Face the Nation, Dean
said, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the
United States and to our allies."
Then, in February 2003, Dean agreed with Bush that the Iraqi threat
was real. . . Dean said, "(H)e has tried to build a nuclear
bomb.. . . So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is
not a debate; it is a given."
A month later on Meet the Press, Dean said he believed that Iraq "is
automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it
because of the possession of these weapons."
Dean may have thought there was "no question" that Hussein was a
threat before the war, but looking back now, his hindsight is telling
him the opposite. Just this week, for example, Dean mentioned at the
DNC's New Hampshire debate "that there was no serious threat to the
United States from Saddam Hussein."
. . . (T)he New York Times reported today that Dean said, plainly, "I
never said Saddam was a danger to the United States, ever." In light
of the Face the Nation quote from 2002, we know that's just not
correct.
While Dean has repeatedly emphasized his belief that war efforts
should be pursued through the U.N., Dean has also appeared willing, at
times, to accept unilateral war in Iraq.
As recently as February 2003 . . . Dean appeared to accept a
unilateral approach in Iraq as a necessary evil.
According to an interview with Salon's Jake Tapper . . . Dean
said . . . (i)f the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own
resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to
disarm . . and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but
unavoidable, choice.
. . . (A)ccording to a Des Moines Register report on October 6, 2002,
Dean said, "It's conceivable we would have to act unilaterally [in
Iraq], but that should not be our first option."
On January 31, 2003, Dean told the LA Times' Ron Brownstein that "if
Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq
still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military
action, even without U.N. authorization."
Since then, however, Dean has insisted that unilateral war is wholly
unacceptable. . .
. . . But before the war, Dean was far more receptive to the
possibility that Bush deserved the benefit of the doubt. . . . U.S.
News & World Report's Gloria Borger asked Dean in September
2002, "Governor, what exactly does the president then have to prove to
you [regarding Iraq]?"
Dean, who now argues that he saw through Bush's charade from the
beginning, said . . ., "I don't think he really has to prove
anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take
the president's word for it."
. . .
(H)e told Roll Call earlier this year, "I would be surprised if
[Hussein] didn't have [chemical and biological weapons.]"
Appearing on Meet the Press on March 9, 2003 . . . Dean spoke with
some certainty about Hussein's dangerous arsenal.
. . . Dean said he believed that Iraq "is automatically an imminent
threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of
these weapons."
. . . (Dean)endorsed a congressional effort . . . that was very
similar . . . to the resolution that passed both chambers in
Congress. . . The Biden-Lugar resolution authorized Bush to use force
in Iraq -- unilaterally, if necessary -- if a diplomatic solution
could not be reached at the United Nations.
Dean has argued that Biden-Lugar would have forced Bush to return to
Congress . . . to seek congressional support for a military
invasion. . . Actually, Biden-Lugar doesn't appear to have made such a
condition at all. The resolution . . simply required Bush to "make
available" to Congress his "determination" that the Iraqi threat "is
so grave that the use of force is necessary." . . .
Dean . . . publicly endorsed it, despite the fact that it allowed Bush
to pursue war in Iraq, without U.N. support, and without a second
congressional resolution. As Ryan Lizza noted last month in The New
Republic, "[T]he war resolution Howard Dean supported would probably
have led to exactly the same outcome -- a unilateral war with Iraq."
. . . (T)he important point to be learned, as far as I'm concerned, is
that Dean's record on Iraq isn't too-terribly-different from that of
Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and Clark.
(Go How-weird!!)
|
klg
|
|
response 446 of 536:
|
Dec 17 03:20 UTC 2003 |
(Note: Go How-weird!! was not in the original article.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 447 of 536:
|
Dec 17 04:01 UTC 2003 |
Re #446: what seems to be overlooked in all that is that prior to the war
Dean was responding on the basis of what Bush said about Iraq acquiring
nuclear weapons, and definitely having WMD, were true. Why should he have
assumed then that Bush was lying? We only learned afterward that Bush had
been lying.
I think this post-factor hesaid/shesaid argumentation is rather
irrelevant. Before the war not only Dean but everyone was not only largely
in the dark about what the administration knew or thought they knew, the
administration was actively lying. That's much worse than any
tentativeness Dean might have had about the situation.
|
klg
|
|
response 448 of 536:
|
Dec 17 04:18 UTC 2003 |
So, in response, Dean lies about his previous position?? Someone
worthy of Mr. richard's vote should at the very least be honest about
his flip/flop. But we certainly won't let that get in the way of our
enthusiasm for his candidacy for the nomination. (By the way, Mr.
rcurl, we would appreciate you not stating that President Bush lied
until after we have positively determined whether he, in fact, did
so. Thank you.)
(Go How-weird!!)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 449 of 536:
|
Dec 17 04:24 UTC 2003 |
We know he did. Even if Iraq does have hidden WMD that will not change
the fact the Bush did not have incontrovertable evidence he did, as he
said he did.
In any case, why don't you apply your criticism of Dean, for flip-flopping,
to Bush's flip-flopping? Bush's prevarications are certainly MUCH more
serious than any mistatements from Dean. Bush took us into a war killing
people on the basis of his lies.
|
bru
|
|
response 450 of 536:
|
Dec 17 04:36 UTC 2003 |
You keep forgeting that teh previous administration believed he had those
weapons as well. Why do you keep forgeting that Clinton thought Iraq had WMD?
That the Clinton intelligence officers passed that information on to the Bush
administration? That Hillary Clinton just this week addressed the Council
on Foreign relations adn Supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
"We owe a great debt of gratitude to our troops, to the president, to our
intelligence services, to all who had a hand in apprehending Saddam," she
said. "Now he will be brought to justice, and we hope that the prospects for
peace and stability in Iraq will improve." said Mrs. Clinton
|
mcnally
|
|
response 451 of 536:
|
Dec 17 04:40 UTC 2003 |
It's not Bush's fault he deliberately deceived the country to
get us to go to war. It was those "Clinton intelligence officers."
Is that really your explanation, Bruce?
|
klg
|
|
response 452 of 536:
|
Dec 17 04:44 UTC 2003 |
bru,
Don't forget, also, the congressmen who were shown the same evidence
as the President and who came to the same conclusion. (Do you
understand what Mr. rcurl is saying??? "If the evidence the President
saw was correct, it cannot be incontrovertable"?? --This man calls
himself a scientist?)
|
richard
|
|
response 453 of 536:
|
Dec 17 05:36 UTC 2003 |
Again, the reason for removing Saddam was that he was said to have weapons
of mass destruction. He did not turn out to have them. Either the
information was wrong or Bush lied. But regardless of that, the real question
is whether the ends justified the means. Bru and klg do not seem to care how
many hundreds of billions of dollars it cost and how many american lives it
cost (and will continue to cost as the troops are still over there) and how
many countries we have relations with that we pissed off. The means don't
matter to them, only the "ends" They are like Hitler, who told the German
people that he would make them great again, that was the "end", and the means,
exterminating the jews, wiping out other countries, just didn't matter.
Well as the German people found out, the ends DON'T always justify the means.
Sometimes the cost is too high. Dean said he would have supported the removal
of Saddam unilaterally IF and ONLY IF there was an imminent threat to national
security, such as we were about to be attacked. This was not the case. So
even though we all wanted Saddam out of power (and I think everyone agrees
on that), the end wasn't going to justify the means unless it happened the
right way. This was NOT the right way to go about it. But Bru and Klg don't
care, they simply don't. They don't care how much blood was shed or what the
longterm diplomatic damage was. There will be longterm repercussions because
of this. And we are now running a huge national defecit again. But Bru and
klg don't care. They just don't. Because to them the end ALWAYS justifies
the means, whatever those means are.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 454 of 536:
|
Dec 17 07:33 UTC 2003 |
re #453:
> Again, the reason for removing Saddam was that he was said to have weapons
> of mass destruction. He did not turn out to have them.
On what do you base this evidently firm conclusion? As they say, absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence.
Whether or not Hussein had WMD or not is a separate issue from whether or
not the Bush administration had the "proof" it claimed to have (but could
not show us) regarding WMD. But while there might be many reasons why
the Iraqis might have hidden or destroyed any forbidden weapons in their
possession it's much harder to imagine reasons why the Bush administration
can't produce evidence of WMD despite the proof they claimed to have before
the war.
> Bru and klg do not seem to care how many hundreds of billions of dollars
> it cost and how many american lives it cost (and will continue to cost as
> the troops are still over there) and how many countries we have relations
> with that we pissed off.
Again, I'd love to know how you reached this surprising conclusion.
The fact that they don't set the decision point at the same place you
do doesn't give you license to assume that they don't recognize any
limits at all.
> The means don't matter to them, only the "ends" They are like Hitler,
> who told the German people that he would make them great again, that
> was the "end", and the means, exterminating the jews, wiping out other
> countries, just didn't matter.
They disagree with you, therefore they are like Hitler. Way to win the
argument, Richard.
Can we all take a deep breath for a second and think about how pathetic
it is to compare an opponent in a BBS argument to Hitler? <pause>
Thank you. We now return you to your regularly scheduled drivel.
|
gull
|
|
response 455 of 536:
|
Dec 17 14:38 UTC 2003 |
I vote that if jp2 is going to use 'How-weird', from this point on Bush
shall be referred to as 'The Shrub' in this item.
|
bru
|
|
response 456 of 536:
|
Dec 17 14:47 UTC 2003 |
"matter to them, only the "ends" They are like Hitler, who told the German
people that he would make them great again, that was the "end", and the means,
exterminating the jews, wiping out other countries, just didn't matter."
well, seig heil to you too! Nice of you to bring up hitler though. Would
you rather we had waited until SAddam rebuilt his army, massed his weapons,
adn moved on Isreal by cutting through Jordan with the support of Syria to
liberate Palestine thus bringing the entire middle east into war? Should we
have kept on appeasing him as we did Hitler until millions of innocent people
had died, the world economy collapsed, adn people started tossing nuclear
weapons around?
Now wouldn't that have been fun. I mean, we would have won, certainly. But
how many billions would have died and how much would we have lost?
Would that have made you happier richard?
|
twenex
|
|
response 457 of 536:
|
Dec 17 15:00 UTC 2003 |
It would have been easier to just say "we are going to depose Saddam".
at least then you would only have broken international law, instead of
breaking international law, lying through your teeth, and leaving the
generations alive today wide open tothe charge of imperialism in the
future.
|
gull
|
|
response 458 of 536:
|
Dec 17 15:08 UTC 2003 |
I don't object to Saddam being removed, but I wish the Shrub had given
us the honest reasons for doing so instead of a series of trumped-up
justifications.
|
twenex
|
|
response 459 of 536:
|
Dec 17 16:44 UTC 2003 |
Re: 458: This guy reads my mind.
|
klg
|
|
response 460 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:18 UTC 2003 |
Herr bru-
Did you see dat Herr richard tinks vee are like der Fuhrer??? Und vee
don't even speek Gehrmann! Iz dat a joke? Unless Herr richard can
show dat ze quote in response 445 are incorrect, den he looks pretty
foolish. No? (Herr doctar Dean beleift dat zhee Iraquis vere
an "imminent threat", jah??)
(Go, How-veird!!)
|
twenex
|
|
response 461 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:24 UTC 2003 |
Mazel tov.
|
klg
|
|
response 462 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:26 UTC 2003 |
Gesundheit.
|
flem
|
|
response 463 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:37 UTC 2003 |
Well *somebody* here sure looks foolish...
|
mcnally
|
|
response 464 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:52 UTC 2003 |
re #464: the word "somebody" seems inappropriately singular..
|
twenex
|
|
response 465 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:55 UTC 2003 |
Hooray for the gifts of humor and laughter (laghter?)
|
klg
|
|
response 466 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:56 UTC 2003 |
Gut *jemand* hier sicheres Aussehen unklug. . .
|
bru
|
|
response 467 of 536:
|
Dec 17 23:26 UTC 2003 |
ja mein heir.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 468 of 536:
|
Dec 18 00:38 UTC 2003 |
(Mike, your response is recursing...)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 469 of 536:
|
Dec 18 01:03 UTC 2003 |
s/464/463/
|
