Dean attacks military, President Bush - "Should have had Saddam six months earlier"

[jmcclain19]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3718010/

WASHINGTON - In a major foreign policy address Monday, Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean hailed the capture of Saddam Hussein as “good news for the Iraqi people and for the world,” but also claimed that his capture “could have taken place six months ago.”

Dean foreign policy adviser Susan Rice said after the speech that the former Vermont governor meant that if the Bush administration had done thorough planning for the aftermath of the military conflict, it could have developed better intelligence sources and in turn might have more quickly captured the deposed Iraqi dictator.

“The capture of Saddam has not made America safer,” Dean also said in the speech.

Lieberman: Dean in 'his own spider hole' That remark drew a caustic reply from one of Dean’s rivals for the Democratic nomination, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman.

“Howard Dean has climbed into his own spider hole of denial if he believes that the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer,” Lieberman said. “Saddam Hussein is a homicidal maniac, brutal dictator, supporter of terrorism, and enemy of the United States, and there should be no doubt that America and the world are safer with him captured.”

In a question-and-answer period following the speech, Dean also said, “I have never found the evidence convincing that Iraq was ever a significant threat to the United States.”

Dean’s candidacy has been powered by his attack on what he calls “the president’s unilateral intervention in Iraq.”

The Bush administration disputes the characterization of the removal of Saddam as “unilateral.” Several other nations, most significantly Great Britain, have contributed troops to the Iraq operation and have suffered casualties.

Dean said in Monday’s speech to the Pacific Council in Los Angeles that Bush had “launched the wrong war, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help and at extraordinary cost.”

'Rallying cry for terrorist recruits' The Iraq war, he alleged, “diverted critical intelligence and military resources … and created a new rallying cry for terrorist recruits.”

Dean said he “would not have hesitated” to launch an attack on Iraq “had the United Nations given us permission and asked us to be part of a multilateral force.”

And he emphasized that he would support use of American military force in some cases, noting that he did support the rollback of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1991 and the effort to halt ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo.

He also said that in Iraq he would have supported U.S. intervention to halt Saddam’s massacres of Shiites in 1991.

Dean, who many polls show is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, also charged that Bush “is about to be responsible for the fact that North Korea has become a nuclear power.” He said, “There is no disgrace in having the most powerful nation on earth negotiate bilaterally with North Korea, while we also pursue a multilateral track.”

Dean assailed “the hard-liners in the Bush administration” for spurning the possibility of engaging in bilateral negotiations with the regime of Kim Jong Il.

In the speech, Dean blasted what he called Bush’s “go-it-alone approach to every problem,” as well as what he said was its “radical unilateralism” and “brash boastfulness.”

“We find ourselves, too often, isolated and resented,” he declared, charging that Bush administration officials “seem to believe that nothing can be gained from working with nations that have stood by our side as allies for generations.”

He pledged to expand the existing U.S. program to find and control the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons inventory of the former Soviet Union.

Fire from Lieberman, Kucinich Of Dean’s eight rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, his most severe critics have been Lieberman and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

Lieberman told reporters Sunday, “the capture of Saddam Hussein makes clear the choice between Howard Dean and me, which is the clearest choice that the candidates for president in the Democratic Party present.”

Lieberman said, “If Howard Dean has his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison.”

Kucinich meanwhile has criticized Dean for offering no timeline for withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq and for not being willing to cut the Defense Department budget – which Kucinich proposes to cut by $60 billion or about 15 percent of current outlays.

“No one else is saying definitively that we must end the (Iraq) occupation and I’m the only one doing it,” Kucinich told MSNBC.com recently. “I see this as a defining issue in this election. We must have a plan to get out. Not maybe. … We must have the Democrats united in ending the occupation.”

[Shermy]

http://www.christianmusictv.com/id95.htm

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Well Howie, you should have told us exactly where he was six months ago if you knew. Just like a lib, all they have to offer is problems with no solutions.

[Shermy]

I think Dean, like other demos, are falling on the swords of their "immediate threat" meme.

[VOA]

OK class, time to do a little analysis: In a question-and-answer period following the speech, Dean also said, “I have never
found the evidence convincing that Iraq was ever a significant threat to
the United States.”

In other words, Dean would need to see a country as a threat to the United States
before he'd attack it.
So how does that fit with these following statements?

And he emphasized that he would support use of American military force in
some cases, noting that he did support the rollback of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait
in 1991 and the effort to halt ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo.

But what if Saddam had given us his word that he'd be selling Kuwait's oil at the same
price as before he invaded Kuwait and he'd keep the oil flowing.
At that point, I don't see how Dean could construe Saddam's move as threatening
the United States. It would just have been an argument between two sovereign states,
at least the way Dean would spin it.

Ethnic cleansing between a bunch of folks who've loved killing each other for
about a thousand years in Bosnia and Kosovo...what sort of substantive threat is that
to the USA, Dr. Dean?
That crap was going on before the USA...might be going on when our children's, children's,
children's bones are turned to dust.

He also said that in Iraq he would have supported U.S. intervention to halt Saddam’s
massacres of Shiites in 1991.

What? Massacre is just a numbers game. A bunch of Shiites with guns, RPGs and
other weapons took on Saddam. Gambled and lost, as sad as it was.
Why in the heck is that a threat to the USA, Dr. Dean?

[Howlin]

Be afraid.

[Shermy]

http://www.evote.com/weekend_section/09292002/FTNReview.asp

Mr. Schieffer: You are unabashedly seeking the Democratic presidential nomination… you have said at this point that the president has not yet made the case for war, and that nothing so far has justified a unilateral strike into Iraq. But Iraq now says over the weekend that it will not accept tougher rules for inspection. Doesn’t that make the case now for the administration?

Governor Dean: Not quite yet. There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States, and to our allies. The question is, is he an immediate threat? The President has not yet made the case for that. I think it very well may be, particularly with the news that we had over the weekend, that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it’s got to be gone about in a different way, it really is important to involve our allies, to bring other people into the coalition, to get a decent resolution out of the UN Security Council…

Ms. Borger: What exactly does the president have to prove to you?

Governor Dean: 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. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future. My question is not that we may not have to go into Iraq, we may very well have to go into Iraq. What is the rush? Why can’t we take the time to get our allies on board? Why do we have to do everything in a unilateral way? It’s not good for the foreign policy of this country to be the big bully on the block and tell everybody we’re going to do what we want to do…

Mr. Schieffer: What in your mind would justify a strike on Iraq?

Governor Dean: First of all, a strike may be justified. What the president has got to say is that Saddam has atomic or biological weapons, and has the means to deliver them to ourselves and our allies. He has never said that to my knowledge, nor have any of his surrogates

[anniegetyourgun]

Bush/Cheney campaign ads are going to be just too easy!

[wizardoz]

This guy may be an MD doctor, but he isn't smart enough, to be consistent.

Can you imagine having him as your doctor? "This is not the time to operate on the tumor. We should have gotten it six months ago. You'd be better off without it but it's no danger. Let me check with ten international witch-doctors and shamans and see what they say."

[Ukiapah Heep]

Is Howie flicking buggers now?

[VOA]

Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean hailed the capture of Saddam Hussein
as “good news for the Iraqi people and for the world,”
but also claimed that his capture “could have taken place six months ago.”

I pray that some reporter or heckler will ask Dean why he didn't get his boots on
the ground in Iraq six months ago!

[prairiebreeze]

Excellent recap

Prairie

[Nick Thimmesch]

m

[grania]

In a major foreign policy address Monday, Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean hailed the capture of Saddam Hussein as “good news for the Iraqi people and for the world,” but also claimed that his capture “could have taken place six months ago.”

Think about this statement. Dean is saying that Saddam could have been captured six months ago. Well, if that were the case, no one would have objected to the invasion of Iraq. So, maybe Dean isn't really opposed to war, he just wants faster more efficient wars?

My son served in the military. People he served with have positions of responsibility in Afghanistan and Iraq. I object very strongly to Dean's implication that somehow our fine soldiers didn't do everything possible to find Saddam as quickly as possible, that somehow they would have done better with help from other nations or with a different leader of our military.

The tone of what Dean says sounds bitter. He's alienated the other candidates, he's left with no issues, and he's incoherent.

[prairiebreeze]

ROFL!!

Prairie

[prairiebreeze]

Clintons (both of them), is a lowlife, scumbag POS

I just saw a very brief clip of Beestie's foreign policy speech. She said the Clinton administration tried to get OBL by using missiles. I jumped up and started yelling at the TV that her traitorous "spouse" couldn't be bothered to attack OBL in a timely manner and the opportunity was LOST!!

I scared the dog. Husband just looked up and said "I wish you'd say what you really think." LOL

That dirty dishwater blond 'ho

Prairie

[prairiebreeze]

This guy may be an MD doctor, but he isn't smart enough,

Truly not an indicator of intelligence. Believe me.

Prairie

[prairiebreeze]

All the Democratic losers have said this. Until election time of course.

Prairie

[chilepepper]

The really, really scary part is that there are people out there who seriously want this guy to be POTUS...

[prairiebreeze]

Which of course is why they aren't to be trusted with national security AT ALL!! They have and are continuing to prove over and over they will prostitute themselves to any cause or position .....regardless of the consequence to the nation.

Prairie