Dean Finally Shoots Self Somewhere Other Than Own Foot

12/16/03 | inyurhed

[inyurhed]

"The capture of Saddam has not made America safer", were the foolish words that left the lips of Democratic front-runner Howard Dean, one day after a major victory in the War on Terror. Personally, I think this guy was next in line for the pipe Clinton was unable to inhale from. And I don't think he's let go since. From a most basic common sense approach, realizing that the current main front in the War on Terror is in fact, Iraq, how can permanently removing the head of the opposition not be a major step forward? If all goes even close to as planned, a stable Iraq will serve as a model for future peace in the Middle East. A peaceful Middle East lessens the terror threat to nearly all freedom loving people. Would that not incluse us? This could be the fatal error the right-minded people have been expecting. If any of the Left is paying attention, Dean has just officially proven the he is DEFINITELY clueless when it comes to foreign policy. Another in a long line of RATS that just doesn't get it.

[ladyinred]

The entire middle east is a safer place without Saddam, especially Israel. We cannot pull our troops out of the area unless he is not in power anymore, because of our commitment to Israel, and the fact that our troops are over there makes more tension in the area. So this had to happen. If Dean doesn't know that the entire world is better off without this dictator in power , then anyone who votes for this idiot is part of those who are against us.

[Az Joe]

Yes, I cannot see how he avoids eating that statement again and again and again.

He and his followers are way, WAY off the beaten path and packin' lots of Kool-Aid.

[Impy]

Good. With this kind of crap spewing out of his mouth he'll be lucky to win 5 states.

[inyurhed]

LOL.....Well, I'm glad I looked at your sign-in name, or I'd have just thought another crack-pot (emphasis on the POT) had been crossing into territory he didn't really belong in. But, since you bring up a few points, let's discuss.
1st, over 70% of Americans believe Hussein had a hand in the 9/11 attacks, and that crosses political lines. Not that this proves anything, but, in my opinion, to believe that he didn't at the very least have a monetary hand in it, is naive. And now there are leaks reporting that some of the documents he had on him at time of capture DO indicate a link between Hussein and al Qaeda. These are things that may not be officially made public for a long time to come. That will be up to the government's discretion.
2nd, using all-inclusive statement such as "the whole world" is a little more than irresponsible. I'm sure countries such as England, Spain, Italy, Australia, Poland, as well as the other 55+ countries that have given either public or private support would like to be included in your world, too. And let's face reality for a moment. The true reasons the likes of France, Russia, and Germany did not want us going in there, were money and weapons. Specifically, the money Hussein owed them for the weapons they were selling Iraq illegally. Strangely, it was they, who accused us of only doing it for the money. Hmmmmmm. Seems greed and corruption weren't only living in Iraq. And Iraq would have to be pumping oil directly to the U.S. from now until who knows when, to pay our monetary costs in this war. There is no amount of money that can make up for the lost soldiers, civilians, and civilian aid workers lost thus far. If you don't believe me on that one, just ask one of their family members.
Now lastly, it HAS made America safer. If for no other reason than there's one less psycho out there in the world, plotting the downfall of our great country. Do you honestly believe that if he could have found a way to deliver a major blow to the U.S., he wouldn't have jumped at the chance? Time will tell that it was only a matter of time before he'd have been able to do just that. WMD will be found. Perhaps across the border in Syria, but, they will be found. We are still stumbling across mass graves, hidden weapons caches, Saddam himself. We will come across the bigger weapons. We've already got proof that he had, or was in the process of obtaining missiles that were able to travel far beyond the range mandated by the U.N. Security Council. We've also discovered another type of missile that was specifically designed for chemical warheads. They have two chambers, meant for mid-flight mixing of the chemicals to produce sarrin gas. Can you explain to me why he'd have the missiles to deliver a chemical weapon, but no chemical warhead to arm it with? (and please, let's avoid the crack-POT conspiracy theories here. let's keep it at least to a somewhat plausible theory)
I do however agree that this war MAY have been a complete waste of time, money, and blood. You see, I believe that there was a chance......a very slim chance......that had the whole world presented Hussein with a united front in the U.N., Hussein may have been forced to cooperate and follow the U.N. mandates and Security Council resolutions. However, because of idiots like France, Germany, and Russia, (not to mention the people who just don't understand global politics here at home......such as yourself) Hussein saw a division. Because of that division, he thought he could get away with whatever the hell he pleased. He nearly did. If not for the foresight and character of GW, he would have. How many more innocent Iraqis would have had to die, before anyone would have done something about it? How many more women raped? How many more genocidal acts would he have had to commit before someone would have finally stood up and said, "ENOUGH!"? The fact is, by going to war now, by not waiting around until we got "permission" from the U.N., we saved lives. Isn't that what the major whine is about? Too many lives lost in war? Why is it that you liberals only care about the lives lost DURING the war? What about the lives lost before the war commences? What about the lives that would be lost had the war not happened?
Let's face it. I'm not going to convince you that you're wrong. And you're certainly not going to be able to prove anything to me with twisted logic and emotional ranting. You're going to believe what you believe, and I'm going to believe what I'm going to believe. You quite likely knew what most of my responses to your letter would be. So, now, why not go back to "moveon.org", or wherever you were sent from, and exercise those freedoms to complain about the conservative element in this country with your own kind? You know.......the freedoms that most Iraqis would have liked to have had for the past 35 years? Especially the 400,000 dead ones buried in those mass graves we keep stumbling across.
May God Bless......

[inyurhed]

Actually, this goes to the moderator that removed #5 in this line. i don't know of any other way to get the message to you, but after rereading #5, the one that was removed, i couldn't see why it was removed. i personnaly think it would be good for the rest of the freepers to be able to respond to these types of liberal rantings. i think they are exactly what a site like this was meant for. but, these are just my opinions, and if there was truly something that went over the line, i'd like to know what it was so i don't make the same mistakes when replying to these types of people in the future.....

[JeepInMazar]

Fair Oaks Media

[inyurhed]

At what point did I say the capture of Hussein was going to cure everything? The fact remains that he is ONE psycho. And his capture sends a message to the others on the list...."STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING, OR YOU'RE NEXT!" Anyone with a thimble full of logic realizes there is more to do. But, one less idiot with too much money, a liking for genocide and WMD's, a hatred towards America, and a strong desire to do us harm, is certainly a step towards American safety at home and abroad. In the long run, because of his capture, we are a safer nation.
One last time for the thinking impaired......world peace is not imminent. We do not have a "magic dome" covering our glorious country that was miraculously erected at the time of his capture. As much as I'd like to have my Fairy Godmother wave her magic wand and make all of the bad people disappear, it's just not going to happen. There is still danger, and will be for a long time to come. Sadly, much of that is due to years (8) of neglecting everything that was going on outside of the oval office. Perhaps, more specifically, what was going on inside a young White House intern. If Clinton had held Saddam's feet to the fire, paid attention during the intel briefings and less to the latest poll numbers, bombed a real target instead of an pharmaceutical factory, or countless other things he SHOULD have been doing, perhaps nearly 3,000 innocent civilians would not have had to pay for his ignorance and arrogance with their lives. Perhaps we wouldn't be making a second appearance in the Middle East. And yes.....before you say it, Reagan and Bush should have handled Hussein a little differently, but when the torch was handed to Clinton, it was his hand that dropped it. (now, go ahead and tell me that it was under Bush's watch that 9/11 happened, that it was completely his fault, etc....That way, everyone can see your true colors)

[kristolisacommie]

i'll agree with dean that it hasn't made america safer. tom ridge seems to concur. if we were safer, wouldn't the beloved risk level have moved down instead of up.

[inyurhed]

What is it that you people don't get? Moving the risk level up is just another part of making sure we stay safer. For those fo you agreeing with Dean, your views are completely one dimensional. There is a complete package at work here. And if you want to go that route, fine. Have we been attacked here at home since 9/11? No? Though not. Every step we take makes America a little safer, INCLUDING capturing Saddam Hussein! That does not insure that there will never be another attack. We know they are continuing to try. Until they are ALL eliminated, there will always be danger. However, to elimiate all of them, you have to start with one.........then another.......and another........etc.......etc......get the idea?

[luvbach1]

...if we were safer, wouldn't the beloved risk level have moved down instead of up.

Who said the terror risk is a constant? Of course it is subject to fluctuations, depending intelligence on the actions of the terrorists, especially how close they are to attempting a major attack. The long-term threat level could be less, but that does not preclude near-term threats of attack as reflected in the dynamic color code.

[luvbach1]

Dean is shockingly myopic on geo-politics.

Further, his, and other leftists' penchant for denying any achievement by Bush necessitates that they dismiss all triumphs as inconsequential, regardless of their implications, as in the capture of Saddam.. Dean believes he has no choice because Bush "failure" in the war on terror remains a cornerstone of his campaign.

[inyurhed]

So then, by your logic, we should just bring our boys home, give up the war on terror altogether, and hide behind our own borders because THAT will make us safer? You said it yourself, with Saddam gone, there is one less source of funding for terrorism. You also used the word "verifiable". Do you really think that's the only thing Hussein was guilty of? Funding Palestinian terrorists? Pull your head out of your %(#@!!
Every time we have a victory in the war on terror, there are going to be attempts at retaliation. That's a foregone conclusion. That's how these people do business. We knew that going in. Nothing's changed. Does that really mean that we should have never undertaken the war on terror? Does that mean we should just sit around waiting for the next attack, instead of trying to attack those who would strike at us if and when given the opportunity? Hiding our heads in the sand does not seem to me to be a very good strategy for defending our nation. Bush is doing the right thing. In the long run, our country, and the rest of the free world, will be safer. A world where the bad guys have diminished power, money, and opportunity to do damage to the innocent is the very path on which we need to be, and are heading down.
And by the way, we've been hearing for the past 2+ years that the next attack is coming. And while I believe there will be more attacks on this country, there simply haven't yet been. In case you've not been paying attention, Bush's policies have been working. I believe he could and should be doing more, but, we're far better off under President Bush than we would have been under President McCain, Gore, Clinton, or would be under a future President Dean. You wanna talk about making America less safe? Go ahead........Vote Dean.........Seal our collective fates.....

[freaksh0]

USA will not be truly free till we get rid of EVERYONE who doesn't agree with us. That means a downright genocide on the rest of the world until they realize that WE are the true rulers of the Free World

[Jim Robinson]

Troll banned.

[inyurhed]

Please tell me that was in jest??? (besides, we'd have to start right here at home with about 1/2 the population.....lol)