View Full Version : howard dean

12-10-2005, 01:49 PM
Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

now thats supporting our troops!

Dean said his comments from the radio interview in San Antonio, Texas, were taken "out of context. They kind of cherry-picked that one the same way the president cherry-picked the intelligence going into Iraq."

how do you kind of cherry pick what he said? he said we cant win. you cant really take that out of context

12-10-2005, 02:02 PM
The same way Bill Bennett was taken "out of context." Neither were.

Nothing in what he says expresses a lack of support for the troops. It's a comment on the war itself and on those who are running the war. Dean would say, and has said, that the troops are serving their country courageously and honorably.

It is possible to support the troops (recognizing they are doing what they are being asked to do and recognizing they are sacrificially serving our nation) without supporting the war or the war planners.

12-12-2005, 09:22 AM
I wish Al-Dean would recognize that what he said has a negative effect on our troops and a positive one for the enemy and just shut his pie hole.

12-12-2005, 09:26 AM
Kind of like when the president says "Bring 'em on"

12-12-2005, 03:31 PM
Funny, so many came to the President's defense when he said the "War on Terror" was not winnable. I suppose that was different. Perhaps the troops knew what he really meant. Of course, even if they did, doesn't the quote provide the "terrorists" with the feeling that they are going to win?

"Can we win? I don't think you can win it." —after being asked whether the war on terror was winnable, "Today" show interview, Aug. 30, 2004

I am sure those terrorists are listening more closely to the DNC Chairman than the President of the US.

12-13-2005, 11:19 AM
Are you saying that the war in Iraq, a specific action in a specific area with quantifiable objectives, is the same as the war on terror, which is a global action against unknown individuals with open-ended objectives? I think there is a major difference in magnitude.

Whether we ultimately succeed in Iraq depends on the Iraqi people. We freed them from Saddam Hussein (a major villian if there ever was one), but they have to want to stay free. Want it enough to persevere in spite of a minority that wants a return to the oppresive past.

The war on terror has no such clearly-identifiable targets. Anybody with an agenda and a will to can make a terrorist attack, just look at the Unabomber. As such, how can you define "winning"? As long as people consider violence as a legitimate tool for political action, we will have terrorism.

So there is nothing contradictory about the two viewpoints. One can be "won", the other is basically a holding action.


12-13-2005, 11:38 AM
I think the larger point is that if simply saying that a war is unwinnable emboldens the enemy, then the president's comments have emboldened our enemy in the War on Terror.

12-13-2005, 12:11 PM
Thank you Scribe... my point exactly.

12-13-2005, 12:13 PM
One had a more profound meaning, the other meant we should run home with our tail between our legs.

12-13-2005, 12:16 PM
Do you think the terrorist make the distinction?

12-13-2005, 12:21 PM
One had a more profound meaning, the other meant we should run home with our tail between our legs.
A more profound meaning? I have never associated Mr. Bush with anything "profound".

It is not a surprise that some would see it as running home with our tail between our legs. I hate that you would put me in a position to defend Howard Dean (not a big fan) but do you honestly think that is what his "less than profound" comment was intended to mean? Some might see their being sent to battle on false premises and continuing to die due to bad planning as not particularly supportive of the troops. I can understand why Mr. Dean feels it is important to bring members of our National Defense back home instead of continuing to use them as a Nation building tool.