Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dean on Saddam in 2003

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
cindyw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 01:58 PM
Original message
Dean on Saddam in 2003
"I never said Saddam was a danger to the United
States. Ever. Saddam was a regional danger. I
believed that he had weapons of mass destruction.
I believe we could have controlled him. I believed
that the proper way to remove him should he need
to be removed was through the United Nations and I
never wavered from that." (Fox News
Channel, 12/10/2003)

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a
threat to the United States and to our allies."
(CBS Face the Nation, 9/29/2002)





"We don't know whether in the long run the Iraqi
people are better off. And the most important
thing is, we don't know whether we're better off."
(Meet the Press, 6/22/2003)

"Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting
the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value
of democracy, and the centrality of human rights
must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The
world would be a better place if he were in a
different place other than the seat of power in
Baghdad or any other country." (Dean speech,
"Defending American Values – Protecting America's
Interests," 2/17/03)





"'It's kind of like when you are walking down the
street and there is some kid, some punk, who is
using swear words and trying to annoy you,' Dean
said, according to a political website. `Now you
are bigger and older, but at some point you get
really annoyed and frustrated and want to take him
out. Now that punk doesn't represent an immediate
threat and you can contain him and let him swear
at you. This is like Iraq and Saddam Hussein.'"
(Union Leader editorial,
3/26/03)

RUSSERT: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in
January, Governor, "I would be surprised if
(Saddam Hussein) didn't have chemicals and
biological weapons."

DR. DEAN: Oh, well, I tend to believe the
president. I think most Americans tends to
believe the president. It turns out that what the
president was saying and what his administration's
saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is."
(NBC, "Meet the Press," 6/22/2003)





"This is a great day for the Iraqi people, the
US, and the international community." (Dean
statement on the capture of Saddam Hussein,
12/14/03)

"We've gotten rid of (Saddam), and I suppose
that's a good thing." (Washington Post, 4/29/03)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Racenut20 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Clear as Mud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well, once I checked the context of the second quote
you blew your case for me:

There's 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.

...And if Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, we are clearly going to have to do something about it. But I'm not convinced yet and the president has not yet made the case, nor has he ever said, this is an immediate threat.

In fact, the only intelligence that has been put out there is the British intelligence report, which says he is a threat but not an immediate one.
(CBS Face the Nation, 9/29/2002)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. And considering that was said a week after the Bush Doctrine was delivered
I'd say it shows a pretty darn good understanding of the situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cindyw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. Add that part if you like, but Dean still said that he never said that
Saddam was a danger. His argument that he was or was not an Immediate threat is not the point. He is right in that manner but the point of the comparison was not that. Dean did not say that he never said Saddam was an immediate danger. He said that he never said he was a danger to the U.S.

He clearly did say that he was, imminent or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demnan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. I think Dean can only react
as the Senate and House members can only act, on the information they are provided. That information over the past year has been incredibly conflicting.

The big question here is the voracity of the information provided by the Bush Administration, not remarks or reactions by various Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. and a "great day for the administration"
not one of the other candidates praised the administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. That's not exactly praise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. In the context of
"a great day for the Iraqi people, the US, and the international community" I can't see it otherwise. Dean went way overboard in his praise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evil_orange_cat Donating Member (910 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. Gee... you are comparing what Dean said before he found out Bush was lying
to what he said after he decided Bush was lying... WHOOPITY DO!

bashing Dean is so last month... :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cindyw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Can you give me a date of when Dean found out Bush was lying?
Was it before or after the IWR?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
7. And this is how Rove will fry him.
And why didn't the press who were supposed to be focusing on Dean since last June bring more of this out BEFORE? You would think since Dean was given a press plane back then that more examination of his actual positions and the apparent inconsistencies, the press would have jumped on every little thing like they did Gore.

But, no...somebody wanted Dean to be unexamined UNTIL it appeared he would be the nominee and it was too late for Democrats to adjust.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Perhaps because there's nothing to bring out?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Pure horse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
11. Poop
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
desi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
13. If only we devoted as much time
...looking for quotes and facts from/about the Busheviks and the Neo-CONS....those are the people that should concern All Progressives. These are the people that we should be uniting against....IMHO of course.

Such as: Ledeen
Neo-conservative policies are also strongly influenced by Michael Ledeen. Ledeen has worked for the Pentagon, U.S. State Department, and the National Security Council, and he was involved with the arms transfers to Iran during the Iran/Contra affair, which he documents in his book Perilous Statecraft: An Insider's Account of the Iran-Contra Affair. William O. Beeman writes the following about Michael Ledeen for the Pacific News Service:


Ledeen's ideas are repeated daily by such figures as Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. His views virtually define the stark departure from American foreign policy philosophy that existed before the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. He basically believes that violence in the service of the spread of democracy is America's manifest destiny. Consequently, he has become the philosophical legitimator of the American occupation of Iraq.

Ledeen has become the driving philosophical force behind the neoconservative movement and the military actions it has spawned. His 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed; How the United States Led a Global Domocratic Revolution, Won the Cold War, and Walked Away, reveals the basic neoconservative obsession: the United States never "won" the Cold War; the Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight without a shot being fired. Had the United States truly won, democratic institutions would be sprouting everywhere the threat of Communism had been rife.

Iraq, Iran and Syria are the first and foremost nations where this should happen, according to Ledeen. The process by which this should be achieved is a violent one, termed "total war."

"Total war not only destroys the enemy's military forces, but also brings the enemy society to an extremely personal point of decision, so that they are willing to accept a reversal of the cultural trends," Ledeen writes. "The sparing of civilian lives cannot be the total war's first priority ... The purpose of total war is to permanently force your will onto another people." <4>

Bush
Many neoconservatives found important positions in the Department of Defense under George W. Bush. They had long argued for a preventive war against Iraq in particular, but also several other Middle Eastern countries (Iran, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia). Immediately following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, they renewed their calls for attack on Iraq. The Bush administration chose to first invade Afghanistan, but the neoconservatives eventually prevailed.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Neo-conservative

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cindyw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. We will my friend, we will.
Have you any doubt that this place will turn into a Bush fighting factory after the primary? But this is the primary.

The General election will be a Bush bashing, quote digging, good debating feast. I will be there. I'm sure you will too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
desi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. There's no doubt in my mind cindyw...

....but there is so much to do and so little time to be spending it cutting up and spitting out those we hope will be our country's salvation. As much as I detest Joe "another Zig Zag Zell" Lieberman for the path he has chosen for his campaign I will not belittle those who have chosen him as their candidate. I am committed to PeeWee Herman if he would win our nomination...and I would not need to hold my nose in pulling the lever for him.....cheers cindyw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbyboucher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-03 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
18. Nice editing.
Good job. Props. Perfect cut and paste. Nice elimination of context. Excellent!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jan 13th 2025, 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC