Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (18526)	12/3/2003 6:33:49 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793888

Dean's successful effort to rally the far left has really put him out on a limb. Will Iraq Be Howard's End? Contrary to popular belief, Dean has waffled. BY MICHAEL O'HANLON Mr. O'Hanon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. WSJ.com Will Howard Dean's sharp criticisms of the Bush administration's Iraq policy leave him vulnerable to the Republican charge that he is weak on national security? This question haunts the Democratic Party as it enters the presidential primary season. Mr. Dean would almost surely not have achieved front-runner status without going on the attack against George W. Bush's Iraq policy. But most Democrats say they prefer a less strident candidate who criticizes Mr. Bush more for his unilateralist rush to war than the justness of the basic cause--and who therefore might be in better synch with the country's political center of gravity come next November. Clearly, Mr. Dean's opposition to the war now looks like a sounder political position than it did right after Saddam Hussein fell. Inspectors have not found the advanced chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs they expected in Iraq. Evidence of any substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda is flimsy; the president has himself observed that there is no evidence linking Saddam to the Sept. 11 attacks. A protracted and intensifying insurgency in post-Saddam Iraq makes our triumph look increasingly incomplete. Perhaps a continuation of containment and sanctions was a reasonable policy option after all. Even those of us who reject this argument must concede it is now more powerful than it was seven months ago. But even if one grants that point, there are two big problems with Mr. Dean's position on Iraq--not even counting his occasional intemperate remarks, like those expressing ambivalence about the fall of Saddam and killings of Uday and Qusay Hussein. And they may spell big political trouble for the governor come next summer and fall, should he be the Democratic nominee at that point. First, Mr. Dean agreed with President Bush that Saddam needed to be disarmed but never explained how to verifiably achieve that goal without threatening force. In other words, Mr. Dean did not really support containment. He did not say we could live with the status quo. He too wanted to ensure that Saddam complied with U.N. demands, yet offered no practical sticks-- or carrots--to accomplish that objective. For example, in a major foreign policy address at Drake University on Feb. 17 this year, Gov. Dean stated that "Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate, this is a given." But in the same speech he described a military operation to overthrow Saddam as "the wrong war at the wrong time." Just how one could have expected Saddam to verifiably disarm in the face of such rhetoric is unclear. The former governor did not assert that Saddam already was effectively disarmed or that we could live with the status quo. Nor did he argue that inspections should be given more time before resorting to war. Rather, he categorically opposed the threat of force even as he insisted that the U.S. did need to ensure Saddam's disarmament. This position does not hold water. But enough about the past. Mr. Dean's second main problem is even more serious because it concerns what to do about Iraq now. Here he is trying to have it both ways. He insists at times that we need to remain in Iraq and succeed. Then he changes tune abruptly, advocating U.S. troop withdrawals and opposing further expenditures of American money to complete the job there. The first position is clearly designed to appeal to the left-leaning part of the Democratic base, the second to the general electorate. Mr. Dean is making both arguments simultaneously, and they are completely contradictory. Consider the record. On Sept. 26 this year, in a statement calling for the resignations of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Mr. Dean stated that "we are in Iraq now, and we cannot afford to fail." On Oct. 9, in the Democratic debate in Phoenix, he said, "Now that we're there, we can't pull out responsibly." In these comments, Mr. Dean was realistically recognizing the strategic importance of succeeding in Iraq even if he had himself opposed getting involved there. He was also recognizing the political need to appeal to the mainstream American voter who knows we cannot cut and run in this crucial part of the world. But there is another side to Mr. Dean--the one who must tap into the anger of the Democratic left against all things Bush and against the war in Iraq in particular. In the Sept. 4 debate in Albuquerque, N.M., for example, Mr. Dean stated: "We need more troops. They're going to be foreign troops, as they should have been in the first place, not American troops. Ours need to come home." This was nothing short of a prescription for ending the mission and declaring failure. Worst of all is the new Dean television ad in Iowa. In that spot, he chastises Dick Gephardt for supporting President Bush's Iraq policy, and then concludes, "I opposed the war in Iraq. And I'm against spending another $87 billion there." Mr. Dean does not say he opposed the specifics of the administration's supplemental appropriation, which would be a partially defensible position held by several other Democratic candidates. Rather, he categorically opposes an expense of that magnitude in ads running right now in the Hawkeye State. Unfortunately for the country and for the soundness of Mr. Dean's argument, there is no way to stabilize Iraq and protect U.S. security interests in the region without an expenditure in that ballpark. To be sure, other Democratic candidates for president--to say nothing of President Bush--have flaws in their own Iraq positions. But Mr. Dean has claimed to be much more courageous and honest in his Iraq views than the competition. He has also used the issue to catapult himself to front-runner status in the Democratic field. For these reasons, he needs to be held to a high standard. Before choosing Mr. Dean as the party's nominee, Democrats and independents need to assess carefully his Iraq position. They also need to ask themselves how Karl Rove is likely to exploit it later next year, when the operation in Iraq could be going considerably better and when garnering the most left-leaning third of the Democratic vote will not win an election. opinionjournal.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (18526)	12/3/2003 6:58:40 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793888

"I'm only saying that it happens on both sides." Could you provide a few prime examples of major media outlets telling lies & obvious distortions against Democrats on matters of substance? How about a few examples where they call Democrats, "contentious liberals", "hard line liberals" or they have a "liberal agenda"? And once again why has CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC or CNBC ignored those memos by Democrats that, among other things, has placed pure partisan politics above national security & placed our troops at risk? And why has the memo listing 50 examples of Iraq/Al Qaeda connections being ignored when Democrats & the liberal media have repeatedly attacked the Bush administration saying that there was no such connection? Regarding "imminent threat"...... I suggest you read the SOTUA & the, 'President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat', speech word for word. Democrats claimed Bush "lied" & "misled" when they falsely claimed that Bush called Iraq an "imminent threat". Major media outlets & liberal politicians attacked Bush claiming that Bush said Iraq is an "imminent threat" within hours of the SOTUA. imminent : ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head <was in imminent danger of being run over> Saying that Iraq could attack the US soon or might enable terrorists to do so is not the same thing, however, as arguing that Iraq was poised to attack the US. That's what "imminent" means. President Delivers "State of the Union" ...."Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."..... whitehouse.gov October 7, 2002 President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat ...."The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction." Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?.... ....The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies"..... whitehouse.gov I suggest you read the articles linked below & then decide who said what & more precisely when they said it. If they didn't lie & distort, then there is no such thing as a lie or a distortion in politics or the media. Message 19469570 Message 19469610 Message 19508187