Joseph Lieberman supported the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. That's his prerogative, and he's been consistent. But in a recent speech he spins Dean's remarks just like the neocon propaganda machine:
How many people here agree that we are safer with Saddam Hussein in prison?
Howard Dean says no. He said yesterday that the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer. He thinks we're not safer having removed a homicidal maniac who controlled vast wealth, attacked other nations, had grand designs, supported terrorists, killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, and hated us. I'm afraid Howard Dean has climbed into his own spider-hole of denial.to read Lieberman's entire speech:
http://www.joe2004.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6513Lieberman is wrong on two levels. First, he confuses the recent
capture of Saddam with his
removal, which was effected 9 months ago. Saddam was no longer in a position to implement his "grand designs". Howard Dean was absolutely correct in that this recent capture will have little effect on our security.
And also, I happen to agree with Dean that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has made us
less safe. Lieberman speaks of the capture of Saddam as if it took place in a vacuum, ignoring how it has fostered more terrorism and anti-Americanism, diverted resources from the real war on terror, and cost us dearly in blood and treasure.
The Iraq war is a very expensive and bloody foreign aid program, and in the end the chief beneficiaries are likely to be corporate cronies that are already profiting from it.