What does Saddam's capture mean for Howard Dean?

Readers fearful that Saddam's capture might guarantee Bush's reelection will be encouraged by this article

Read Dean's statement here

Comments

[babette]

I find the Dem's open and vicious opposition to Dean a little unsettling. It plays right into the hands of the right, when what we need is a good degree of cut throat disciplined unity from everybody with an interest in getting Bush out of office to save the country from this particularly perilous era.

[Jim]

The country is being saved from a perilous era already. The world does not need another leader who ignores evil. Howard Dean, Neville Chamberlain.....

[Chrish]

I agree Jim. Dean seems to think 9/11 was a
wake up call if so, then what exactly was
the first attack on the WTC and the attack on
the USS Cole all about? Practice Wake Up Calls?

If Dean's statement about "First-rate intelligence undiluted by ideology" means getting rid of all the rules, regulations, and other crap that Liberals have imposed on our Intelligence Agencies on that I whole heartedly agree.

I'd also like to know what exactly does Dean mean when he says "rebuild cooperation with Mexico and other Latin nations"? Is that a subtle hint at allowing, encouraging, and inviting more ILLEGAL Immigration with such things as "Amnesty", Driver's Licenses for "ILLEGAL" Immigrants, paying for their schooling as the Dems are beginning to push. Or, perhaps, is he in agreement with a recent USC study proposing the idea that Illegal Immigrants or Non-Citizens be allowed to vote?

[Greg]

What is most important for Howard Dean is to be on the correct side of the Iraq issue, which he is. The capture or non-capture of Sadam means nothing in relationship to the larger question, the misguided and disingenuous perpetration of the war itself.

Election win or lose, I look to Dean to hold the course and state the truthful facts. To deviate from that approach turns him into a lieing Republican, and we already have one of those.

[Chrish]

Lying Republicans or lying Democrats they
both engage in telling lies and that includes Dean. He is after all a Politican.

[Jim]

I agree Chrish. All politicians lie - to varying degrees. What's important is what they do and is it good for America and the world. Taking out Saddam means: 1) Saddam and his family can no longer hurt Iraq. 2) Iraq has a chance at being democratic and thus more stable. 3) Don't you people think that States that funded terrorists (Al Qaeda or not it's a fact that Saddam allowed terrorists to train in Iraq and he paid families of suicide bombers in Israel/Palestein) are going to be a little less likely to do so in the future.
I don't think there are many countries that are going to want to confront us at this point or pay terrorists to do the same.
Saddam killed more Arabs than anyone in history. Does anybody get this?

[Del]

From inside the Democrats power structure - the 'Clintonistas' - do not want Dean winning the nomination.

This has nothing to do with the election - the Democratic ruling power today has conceded this upcoming election.

What they don't want happening is Dean winning the nomination and unseating the current power structure, which he would have every right to do.

Hence the late entry by Wesley Clark (a Clinton set-up) as a candidate for the Democratic Party. The hope is that Clark will draw more Dems to vote for Clark over Dean. Just listen to Hillary’s new ‘hawkish’ stance. What better candidate than an ex-general to compete with Dean especially at this time with the Iraq situation.

One person that is kicking himself is Al Gore. With Saddam’s capture – he is definitely saying to himself – ‘why didn’t I wait to endorse anyone?’. What the heck was the rush?

Like I’ve stated above – at this point the Democratic Party wants ‘status-quo’ to stay like it is as they prepare for 2008 with Hillary at the helm.

Entertainment doesn’t get any better than this!

Ya gotta love the twisting and turning at the Democratic Party! At least I am!

He-he-he…

[Chrish]

Del, You old fox, you may have hit on something there. Wasn't it you who suggested that the European countries Germany, France, etc were essentially posturing and would, if they wanted any of the action in Iraq, have to forgive the Iraqi debt? Seems that's what they're doin....

You old fox you.... LOL

[Del]

Yes Chrish it was I that predicted that the few countries primarily, France and Germany, would huff and puff - finally put their tail between their legs and come around. Examine the underlying motivator – MONEY!

The more important thing that has consistently cracked me up – is this phantom myth that the international community wasn’t involved. It seems 60 countries that have been involved with the Iraq situation don’t count.

This is outright ‘dishonesty’ especially with the media! Why they could not just state the truth that it was France and Germany that didn’t like what was going on proves the state of affairs.

Liberals and ‘softie’ Democrats can’t seem to understand that the MAJORITY of Americans know this – believe this and hold not only the Democratic Party but also the media in contempt.

It’s so obvious that I’m still trying to be enlightened on how liberals think because at this point I believe it may be one of two things…

A latent gene that disappears from most after they either have children or reach the age of 40 (doesn’t happen to all – some Liberals live a lot longer).

Or they’re still puffing or ingesting some magical dust.

Gotta be one or the other…

Searching for a cure…

[Del]

Knowing that this site - Expats - are now going to shift and really start working towards having a real candidate beat Bush - I wanted to add an interesting article that Dick Morris wrote.

I'm just not sure where to post it.

I know that the immediate reaction will be - NY Post - Rupert M and so on and so on...

If you can suspend your prejudice and read this article - this is exactly what is going on.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/14728.htm

[think]

I am sick of people talking about Iraq like the subject is important. Iraq is meaningless. America was only involved with Iraq because of the money and oil involved. We were there to stop terrorists? BULLSHIT.

I will vote for any challenger of Bush. I have seen the middle class wiped out during Bush's 4 years. I have watched the rich get richer while American families have suffered. America has experienced one Great Depression and under Bush we may experience another. I keep reading that the economy is improving but I don't see it in real life. The media LIES.