When Democrats Attack!!!

B

Bruzilla

Guest
I was watching Dean's much awaited (and feared by Democratic leaders) first appearance on Meet The Press as DNC chairman. He had some interesting things to say (quotes courtesy of NBC News):

On the subject of Bush "lying" about Iraq having WMDs:

MR. RUSSERT: Well, you said there were weapons of mass destruction.

DR. DEAN: I said I wasn't sure, but I said I thought there probably were. But the thing that really bothered me the most, which the 9-11 Commission said also wasn't true, is the insinuation that the president continues to make to this day that Osama bin Laden had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States. That is false. The 9-11 Commission, chaired by a Republican, said it was false. Is it wrong to send people to war without telling them the truth. And the truth was Osama bin Laden was a very bad person who was doing terrible things, but that Iraq was never a threat to the United States. That was the truth.


So... Dean apparently thinks that Osama Bin Ladin was President of Iraq and had nothing to do with 9/11? Or maybe he got Osama mixed up with Hussein... something he would rip into Bush for saying. :loser:

On the subject of Bush saying that Hussein was involved in 9/11:

MR. RUSSERT: When did the president ever suggest that Saddam Hussein was responsible for September 11?

DR. DEAN: He didn't. His nuance--his people suggested that. He suggested that in a nuanced way in many of his speeches. He was asked once directly about it and said, "No, I don't have that evidence." But the truth is in every speech, including the ones during the campaign where he deliberately muddled the anti-terrorism war that we're engaged in with the war in Iraq. They are two separate efforts.


So... the truth is what Dean "reads into" anybody else's comments?

And the Ted Kennedy What-Did-He-Say? Award goes to:

MR. RUSSERT: But is it appropriate for a physician to mock somebody who has gone into therapy and the abuse for drug addiction?

DR. DEAN: Here's the point I was trying--as most of these things are taken by the Republicans, spun around Washington saying this in a one sentence, which I generally had said. But then they're sort of manipulated around, saying this is the kind of thing he said.


On his strong religious beliefs:

I don't go to church all that much. I consider myself a deeply religious person. I consider myself a Christian. And I don't--you know, some of the other Christians would dare to say that I'm not a Christian. Frankly, it's what gets my ire up.

I guess he attends the First Baptist Church of Dean's Basement.

And his philosophy of "I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy":

The truth is we're reaching out all over the place. We are talking to people. I have spoken with evangelicals. I have visited with some of the Catholic hierarchy in this country. We are going to do some more of that. I've been to 18 states. It was 17 when you got your numbers, but recently I went to Oklahoma and Arizona. Of those, eight of them have been red states. We're trying to get our message out everywhere. We are going to go after the Republican--what they think is the Republican base. We're going to go after red states. There are some of those states that we can win. My philosophy is actually there's no such thing as a red state and a blue state. There are purple states. Some are more purple than others. We need to be everywhere, and we will be.

I guess it's his staff who thinks in terms of Red and Blue states???
 

Bustem' Down

Give Peas a Chance
Here's what I think. It needs to be dropped so that we can get what needs to be done done. Whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a non issue now and only time and history will tell us if we were right or not. At this point, an impeachment would only take as long as he has in office so what's the point. All we'd get is Dick Cheney in office and I don't like him at all. If it was a mistake, hey, a lot of people benefited from it. If it wasn't, then in the future we'll look back and say, "good thing we did that.". Personally, I don't think Bush could do his job without the people he has working for him, He has a good staff.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
The Iraq War thing ---

We're *there*. Been there for two years, and despite the horror stories that continually come out, we've still lost fewer men than were killed in a matter of hours on 9/11. Not relevant? That event is often downplayed as an act of terror; we're engaged in a *WAR*. For some reason, if the casualties in war are *low* enough, people are horrified at them. What nation in the world do you know of can claim 1600 casualties after TWO YEARS of war?

And this is the reason I'm commenting - we are there. The time for arguing, bickering, disagreeing, debating - is *BEFORE* we commit to war. If you MUST stop the war, you do it BEFORE it occurs. Because once you commit to war, you have to follow through to its completion, or you cheapen the lives of men who gave their lives at the start of the war.

Once you're IN the war, the time for disagreement is - or should - be over. The nation is engaged in war.

What troubles me for the last couple of years is that the loudest, shrillest voices were only too willing to authorize the war to begin with. We didn't go to war without the say-so of Congress. Maybe they were idiotic enough to think we were just "pretending" and that the Iraqi War Resolution was like so many other parlor tricks on the Hill that don't mean anything - like, spending caps on the budget.

No matter. Opposing a war once it's engaged endangers lives. The only remaining debate should be the two most important ones regarding the war - how do we accomplish our mission and bring our men home again - and not just the second part.

Like I said, ending the fighting *WITHOUT* accomplishing the mission means that the men who fought in the beginning gave their lives for nothing. Pulling out now is reckless and tells those men that their nation will never back them up in the future.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I have nothing intelligent to add so I'll offer up a bit of DU snarkiness:

I've been to 18 states. It was 17 when you got your numbers, but recently I went to Oklahoma and Arizona.
Is this just me?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
This is the greatest failing of the media...

...of our current era:

He didn't. His nuance--his people suggested that. He suggested that in a nuanced way in many of his speeches. He was asked once directly about it and said, "No, I don't have that evidence."

Every day and in every way the media allow the left to STATE AS FACT that we were lied to about Iraq. So, Russert, in the better three years late than never award, gets Dean to say the TRUTH.

When, oh when will some 'reporter' ask a Democrat to comment on this little dity in response to an accusation of lying:

http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

...and then ask them to point out the lies and THEN explain why they voted for it anyway.

Game, set, match.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
And there is why they lie...

Whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a non issue now and only time and history will tell us if we were right or not. At this point, an impeachment would only take as long as he has in office so what's the point.

...because there are people who will believe it because they want and/or need to.

Help yourself.

Try.

It DOES MATTER.

READ: http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

You don't have to be a tool.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
vraiblonde said:
I have nothing intelligent to add so I'll offer up a bit of DU snarkiness:


Is this just me?
Maybe Dean doesn't have all of his toes and has difficulty counting to 19. :lmao:
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
vraiblonde said:
I have nothing intelligent to add so I'll offer up a bit of DU snarkiness:


Is this just me?

That's a good one Vrai! I missed that one.
 

Bogart

New Member
Toxick said:
Sixteen... seventeen...

toc.jpg
Does anyone have a Dean Scream wav file? I want to use it for my IM instead of the knocking sound, thanks!
 
Top