Democrats & Liberals: Archives

As a former Republican, (I was chased from the party by the extremeism of the Bush administration), and current Independent, and Dean supporter, I feel that Hussein’s capture could actually stranghten Dean’s position. As we have seen recently Hussein was a tyrant and a despot, and it is great for the Iraqi people that he is out of power, but I think that we are starting to see that he was rather impotent as a threat to US security. From the descriptions of the administration, you would have thought that Hussein would have been throwing everything that he had at our troops and interests, yet he was living in a hole in the ground. Meanwhile Bin Laden and his lieutenants continue to plan and execute attacks virually unabated. I think that most Americans will realize that Al Queda is still a real threat, and it is here that the Bush administrations’s war on terror has been a failure. Finally, Hussein has been captured but that does not change the fact that millions of Americans are unemployed, have no health insurance, and are really struggling this holiday season, where is the concern for them?

Boy, I wish you two were right. Your arguments make perfect sense, but, unfortunately, I think that masses of voters are more influenced by the sound bites and flashy magazine covers than by a sound examination of this war’s deceptive and tumultuous history. I wish that the glaring mistakes the Bush administration has made were enough to sink them; but all President Bush has to do now is say some witty catch phrase (preferably in costume - I still like his flight suit ensemble), wink at the camera and have it played over the airwaves ad nauseam.

I think President Bush’s chances of winning this election are now stronger than ever, and I believe they were very strong before. He has the flag to rally around, and now a roped up ‘evil-doer’ to show off to all his fans.

I would be shocked if this election were anywhere near as close as that of 2000.

Laughable. Howard Dean is finished. If he were in charge, we never would have gone to Iraq and we never would have removed Saddam Hussein. Liebermann even laughs at Dean now, and he is the only Democrat who deserves a nod for nomination.

“one less of this man’s ilk in power is certainly not a deplorable situation.”

That is how you describe the capture of a man who has murdered hudreds of thousands? Liberals always talk about how we have to do something about this and we have to do something about that, and what about the starving people over there. You are more concerned with the capture of a man who killed 3000 Americans (very tragic) but Saddam Hussein killed one hudred times that many people.

Incidentally, just because he himself was hiding in a rat hole with chocolate bars when we found him doesn’t mean that a week before he wasn’t giving orders and hatching plans for a months worth of coordinated attacks on US troops that needn’t require his direct involvement.

There’s a reason Dem’s are referred to as the “BUT” Brigade.

Laughable. Howard Dean is finished. If he were in charge, we never would have gone to Iraq and we never would have removed Saddam Hussein.
Which is why he has so much support. Not everybody was fooled by the Bush administrations very thinly veiled (and later unveiled - thanks Mr.Wolfowitz!) attempt to force a market economy on wealthy sections of the world at any cost.

Liberals always talk about how we have to do something about this and we have to do something about that, and what about the starving people over there.
You say this like it’s a bad thing.

You are more concerned with the capture of a man who killed 3000 Americans (very tragic) but Saddam Hussein killed one hudred times that many people.
Uh… Well, since Hussein proved to not be a threat (like the CIA said), and Bin Laded clearly is - I think it’s pretty clear where our priorities should lie. Maybe this argument would have been credible during the genocidal attacks on the Kurds, but we both know what the US’s reaction was to that event when it happened.

There’s a reason Dem’s are referred to as the “BUT” Brigade.
Patting yourself on the back and waving a flag around does little to improve a country, BUT trying to stay focused on the reality of a situation may.

I understand. Bellyache about everything “ad nauseum” and never give even a trifling of approval for a job well done, simply laudle your opinion of the reasons we went to war and pray each night that this country be run by someone who doesn’t believe in national security or capitalism. Please, Democrats, deliver us from the evils of the Bush Administration, yea though I walk through the valley in the shadow of Welfare, I shall fear no Republican.

Bush could walk up to your front door and take a bullet protecting you and Democrats would rejoice at his assasination and you would probably spit on his corpse. How do you live each day with the liberal wool over your eyes and not notice the swiss cheese of the Democratic Party?

Yukon Jake wrote “and you would probably spit on his corpse. How do you live each day with the liberal wool over your eyes and not notice the swiss cheese of the Democratic Party?”

Yukon, your ideas, perspectives and opinions regarding politics are welcomed here at WatchBlog. We however, are careful when using the word ‘you’ since, it often leads away from the discussion at hand and into personal invective and denigration. I must ask your cooperation in avoiding the kind of discussion of the writer’s intent, character, or challenge on a personal level as is reflected by the comment quoted above.

Your assistance in this matter will be appreciated. Thank you.

I don’t really know how to reply to that…

I have no problem giving credit to a job well done. The US’s military is unbeatable. They performed their mission with accuracy and swiftness. Congratulations to them for performing their duties so well. I just don’t think this particular duty was of grave importance to our national security at this time and for the reasons given. I don’t believe that taking out Sadam Hussein makes me any more secure. If the President could prove the contrary, I would be happy to support the effort. He is going after Bin Laden, and I support this effort - so maybe that wool is not as thick as you might imagine.

Uh… and on to your second point: if President Bush came to my front door and stopped a bullet from hitting me, no, I don’t think I would rejoice and spit on his grave.

to quote a soundbite i heard somewhere:

“Congradulations, we got the number one guy who had nothing to do with 9-11”.

dig up some WMD’s and prove the reasons for going to war, then we can discuss dean’s future.

Yukon Jack wrote:
You are more concerned with the capture of a man who killed 3000 Americans (very tragic) but Saddam Hussein killed one hudred times that many people

I understand your point, but I don’t feel the premise applies here. We didn’t go to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein killed thousands of his people over 10 years ago. We went to war presumably because he was a threat to thousands of our own. A threat that has never been categorically proven.

As far as Osama- here is someone evidence supports was the mastermind behind 9-11, and these were actual deaths on our soil. Nothing pre-emptive about that. We have a crime, and as such, a criminal to go after. Seems logical. I support that.

If the U.S. were strictly in the business of going to war to rid the world of murdering leaders, then we would have been much more engaged in Sierra Leone, in Rwanda, etc.. If we were in the strict business of ridding the world of despots, wouldn’t we have begun with a country that has been shoring up plutonium for the last 2 years? The same country that has threatened to reactivate their nuclear weapons facilities- several times this year alone?

I think that almost all Americans can agree that we should all honor the sacrifice that the men and women in our military are making, and I have yet to hear of anyone regardless of political party that will not agree that Hussein’s capture is a good thing. However, I think the thing that really bothers people is the question of whether our troops were put needlessly at risk? Was this adminstration so consumed with the removal of Hussein, ( a neo-con goal for more than a decade), that they overlooked a more direct threat in Bin Laden? Once again, the capture of Hussein is something to be appluaded, I just can’t help but think that the situation could have ended with diplomatically. Instead Iraq is still in a state of chaos, and seemingly everyday flag draped coffins arrive home to greet heart-broken families.

I have previously expressed my opinion that much of the danger from Saddam came from how he set himself up as a symbol of defiant and ultimately invincible Arab strength in the face of impotent American pseudo-power. The destruction of that potent symbolism is actually very helpful in the war against terrorism and more specifically in Iraq.

“If we were in the strict business of ridding the world of despots, wouldn’t we have begun with a country that has been shoring up plutonium for the last 2 years? The same country that has threatened to reactivate their nuclear weapons facilities- several times this year alone?”

North Korea has nuclear weapons. Therein lies the distinction in treatment. That is why despots around the world have been eagerly seeking nuclear capacity for decades. They know quite well that it makes dealing with them much more difficult.

sure howard dean has a shot…

of winning vermont!!!

the majority of voters (sorry to say this if i offend anyone) are senior citizens and rednecks, neither of whom will take the time to reflect on the fact that capturing saddam doesn’t necessarily mean the war is over. Nor does it necessarily mean that there was a just cause to go and invade iraq in the first place. no, the ends do not justify the means, but try getting the majority of voters to remember that in november.

what we need to do is get young people interested in what is happening in their country.

but all we ever see is bickering and pundit raving….

and there is so much more interesting things to watch…like MTV crib’s and fear factor….

apathy and mindless television…..a sure way to keep the voters away.

so how do we fix that?

As a former Howard Dean supporter who was driven away by his incessant anger at everything in sight, I must say that the capture of Saddam is a good thing.

We Democrats are on our way to becoming a permanent minority party, and no amount of whining and sneering will fix that. It is high-time that the vitriolic and anti-capitalist minority of our party was shunned as they should be. “Bush=Hitler” is moronic and is only going to lose us another election, but hey whatever makes YOU feel better.

Let me see if I can summarize the previous “pro-Dean” posts:

1) If Dean loses it is because people are watching TV too much (end of comment deleted by Managing Editor for name calling)

2) If Dean loses it is because people not voting for him are rubes who don’t “understand” the world.

Sorry folks but it is precisely those people who DO understand the world. Maybe you Mcarthyites should take it down a notch, hmmm?

I am amazed that so much of the press and public discourse since Sadaam’s capture has been devoted to its political implications. Does every newsworthy story have to be politicized and subsequently tied to Bush’s approval ratings?

Sadaam’s capture is a good thing — on this we can all agree. Does Bush deserve half the credit he’s getting for it? Probably not. But come election time, the capture itself will be a virtual non-issue. Instead, Bush will be judged on what information we coerce out of Sadaam. If we find out about stockpiles of WMD, then Bush will be nearly impossible to beat. If we don’t, then it adds a lot of fuel to Dean’s stance that the war was unjust.

Approval ratings and polls are ephemeral in nature and to say something like “Howard Dean is finished” at this stage of the game is rather short-sighted. What transpires BECAUSE of Sadaam’s capture will be a much more significant determinant in the election.

If we find out about stockpiles of WMD, then Bush will be nearly impossible to beat. If we don’t, then it adds a lot of fuel to Dean’s stance that the war was unjust.
I have to say that Deans stance on “we went to war without good reason and on false pretense in misleading.
As a matter of fact Dec, 16th 1998 is the aniversary of Presidents Clintons declaration to the American people that we just lauched a joint attach with Great Britain against Iraq. I beleive Clinton was qouted as saying ” we needed to destroy his WEAPONS MAKING TECHNOLGY, his biological weapon, nuclear and gas weapons manufactoring capabilities. I dont recall anyone questioning this at the time? That same night Al (wish I could have won my own state Tennesee) Gore was on Larry (dont ask the hard questions) King show and reiterated the same stance that Clkinton had made earlier that same day. While I do support Bush and the war against Iraq, I do question the intelligence that has been gathered over the last 10 years. Bush and Clinton may both have been mislead. BUt its unfair to completely forget the previous administrations and associates connected to it. Hypoctitcal I might say.

Fun to Blog, my 1st time, Thanks all.
Scott Macbeth

Scott, your argument is rational and defensible as far as it goes. However, underlying your argument is the assumption that ‘it is possible to prove a negative’, which of course, is patently false. One can never prove a negative. One cannot prove God does not exist anymore than one can prove that ghosts, or WMD don’t exist. The best that can be said of a negative statement, is that there is no evidence they exist.

Now Hans Blix had reported they found no evidence of WMD. At the last hours, Hussein attempted to negoitiate for complete and open inspections. But, as I said, one cannot prove a negative. I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq, but, I must give the Administration credit for the fact that Hussein created the situation in which we had reason to suspect he did have WMD. In fact, it was part of his strategy to promote the illusion that he had WMD in the hopes of deterring an invasion.

However, at no time, did we have current hard evidence that Saddam DID have WMD, either. War being the horror and scourge of mankind’s own making, I still believe, we had the obligation to withhold invasion until we had harder and more current evidence to justify an action of last resort (war). It is possible to prove a positive (that WMD do exist).

I would have been far more amenable to the invasion had it been a U.N. or NATO sanctioned action. I still believe, the “Cowbow, shoot from the hip” diplomacy, and ‘we’ll go it alone if need be’ preemptory strike policy has harmed our nation far more than any gain we will reap from invading Iraq.

I view Bush’s policy on Iraq as a slap in the face of every one of the dead and maimed Viet Nam Vets, who until now, had the ability to say, their loss at least taught the U.S. that going to war must be a unified publicly supported effort before engagement begins. If the nation’s people are not unified behind the engagement of war, the nation which they died for will be torn and divided. The lesson taught by Viet Nam, has been lost or ignored by this administration, and that means they died or were crippled in vain.

>>As a former Republican, (I was chased from the party by the extremeism of the Bush administration), and current Independent, and Dean supporter

(Personal comments removed by WatchBlog Manager)

Bush is by no reasonable standard “extreme.”

>>I feel that Hussein’s capture could actually stranghten Dean’s position.
Ha, ha, ha, and why is that? Bush has successfully waged two wars, one of which was judged impossible from the experience of the Soviets, and now one of the most evil dictators of the last few decades has been captured and brought to justice. The Iraqi people are free and about to try to build a democratic country, and this is supposed to help Dean over Bush?

(Personal comment removed by WatchBlog Manager)

>>I think that we are starting to see that [Hussein] was rather impotent as a threat to US security.

Had Hussein stayed in power another eight years undisturbed and the considerable evidence linking him to Al Qaeda is true, we would almost certainly have endured more attacks like 9/11. There is no “proof” that Hussein helped attacked us, but the FBI agents who investigated the first World Trade Center bombing believed that Iraq was behind it. Let’s recall that the bomb was encased in cyanide, in the hope of spreading cyanide gas

Further, there’s a small mountain of evidence that Iraqis were involved in the Oklahoma bombing. Plus considerable and growing evidence of a strong link between Hussein and Al Qaeda.

>>Meanwhile Bin Laden and his lieutenants continue to plan and execute attacks virually unabated. I think that most Americans will realize that Al Queda is still a real threat, and it is here that the Bush administrations’s war on terror has been a failure.

Oh yeah, I forgot he nuked LA, right? There hasn’t been a single successful attack in the US in more than two years. That’s a “failure?” What the heck are you talking about?

>>Hussein has been captured but that does not change the fact that millions of Americans are unemployed, have no health insurance, and are really struggling this holiday season, where is the concern for them?

Bush’s tax cuts are leading us into strong economic growth and higher incomes, as is easily predictable. It’s Economics 101.

Richard Clement

The capture of Saddam Hussein shows what the smart use of American power can do. The deaths of 468 American soldiers in Iraq (not counting at least 17 suicides), along with nearly 2700 wounded, and nearly 11,000 (including the wounded)removed from Iraq for medical reasons, show that the Bush Administration has often not been using our power effectively. Dean can beat Bush if large number of Americans decide that symbolic achievements are no substitute for the wise use of military power.