Dean sez, "We're no safer now...

[Vyce 0]

Dean Defends War Stance, Dismisses Criticism

 

Thursday, December 18, 2003

 

 

 

MANCHESTER, N.H.  — Presidential hopeful Howard Dean (search) on Thursday defended his claim that the United States is no safer with Saddam Hussein (search) in custody, contending that the "capture of one bad man" doesn't allow President Bush or Democrats to declare victory in the war on terrorism.

 

Dean, whose foreign policy statement Monday garnered widespread criticism from Democratic rivals, said those in his party who supported the war "backed away from what was right."

 

"I think the Democratic Party has to offer a clear alternative to the American people. The capture of one bad man doesn't mean the president and Washington Democrats can declare victory in the war on terrorism," he said. "The question is what is right, not what is popular."

 

Real dangers ranging from stateless terrorists to North Korea's capacity to make nuclear weapons remain, he said, and must be confronted.

 

"The truth is, Americans are no safer from these serious threats than they were the day before Saddam Hussein was captured," he said. "We are no safer today than the day the planes struck the World Trade Center."

 

As Dean answered his critics and presented his domestic policy, rivals targeted the front-runner on several fronts, including tax breaks he gave as Vermont governor and his comments on former President Clinton's economic record. They are determined to weaken his standing; the latest New Hampshire poll showed Dean comfortably ahead of John Kerry (search).

 

Earlier this week, Dean's rivals, particularly the lawmakers who had backed the congressional resolution authorizing the war, called Saddam's capture a boon for the anti-terrorism campaign, and dismissed Dean's claim to the contrary as a sign of his lack of foreign policy experience.

 

Sen. Joe Lieberman said Dean had crawled into a "spider hole of denial," and Kerry said Dean showed a lack of "leadership skills or diplomatic temperament" to be president.

 

In his domestic policy speech, Dean renewed his call to roll back the federal tax cuts of the last few years. He also called for American business to accept stricter accountability but said he would offer greater access to capital for small businesses and "national investment in growth industries of the future like renewable energy."

 

Although Dean proposed that every wealthy American and corporation pays their fair share of taxes, as Vermont governor he signed into law tax breaks that allowed large corporations such as Enron to establish special insurance subsidiaries in the state.

 

This prompted a fresh round of criticism from his rivals.

 

"It's really interesting to see Howard Dean campaign against tax shelters and corporate abuse when he spent time as governor creating tax shelters for companies like Enron," Kerry said Thursday.

 

Dean called the criticism "Washington palaver. ... The idea that we sculpted a tax break for Enron is ridiculous."

 

Questions about Dean's record on aid to corporations surfaced last week as the Boston Globe reported on tax breaks Dean gave during his tenure as Vermont governor. Enron set up a special insurance subsidiary in Vermont on Dec. 12, 1994, a year after the Dean-supported tax break to the industry went into effect.

 

The Gephardt campaign contended that in 1997 Dean "followed the prevailing climate" by signing into law a measure that reduced the public disclosure requirements on corporations receiving tax windfalls in Vermont.

 

Gephardt campaign manager Steve Murphy said Dean has continued to refuse to disclose details of meetings or negotiations with Enron before the corporation located a shell corporation in Vermont in exchange for tax breaks.

 

"The most important corporate reform is disclosure. If Governor Dean is not committed to that, the rest of what he says is just more political talk," Murphy said.

 

In his speech Thursday, Dean said the "era of big government is over; I believe we must enter a new era for the Democratic Party," the first part echoing a line Clinton used in his State of the Union address.

 

Sen. Joe Lieberman argued that Dean's comment amounted to a criticism of Clinton's economic record.

 

"I want to build on the Clinton record and Howard Dean seems to want to tear it down. We're not going to lift up America or the Democratic party by tearing down Bill Clinton's extraordinary record of economic success," Lieberman said.

 

Dean said he intended no criticism of Clinton.

 

credit: Fox News

 

A lot of interesting material in this story - the Washington Post had a very similar piece in today's paper - but I focused upon that one remark because it's just so remarkable in its complete and utter idiocy.

 

I've come over to Marney & Mike's side on the guy - Democrats had better pray he doesn't get the nomination. No way in hell is he going to get enough mass appeal from the moderates to win.

[Highland 0]

"The truth is, Americans are no safer from these serious threats than they were the day before Saddam Hussein was captured," he said. "We are no safer today than the day the planes struck the World Trade Center."

 

He's right. Saddam isn't the mastermind behind terrorists, they still threaten the US and its allies; also I'm pleased to see that Dean is willing to stick to his beliefs: He opposed the war before it was declared and he still opposes it even after Saddam's capture.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't see how we are much safer today either. While the timing of the comments may be questionable, he does have a point.

Edited December 19, 2003 by NoCalMike

[Vern Gagne 0]

"We are no safer today than the day the planes struck the World Trade Center."

 

 

I had no idea the governor of Vermont would be privy to such classified intelligence to make such assumptions.

[Guest JMA]

Nothing new here. The other candidates know Dean is going to get the nomination. And they can't do a damn thing about it except try to attack him together. The only person I could see toppling Dean would be Kerry or Clark (seeing as how attacker's CAN'T question his patriotism).

[Guest Cerebus]

Another Dean article. As mike would say:

 

Intriguing...

[Vern Gagne 0]

I could see toppling Dean would be Kerry or Clark (seeing as how attacker's CAN'T question his patriotism).

Well the only way that's possible is if they served in the military.

[Vyce 0]

Some of you seem to be confusing "We're no safer now than when the War began" with Dean's actual remark, "We're no safer now than when the planes hit the WTC."

 

For the former, you might have a valid argument.

 

For the latter? You'd be completely wrong. As Dean is here.

[Cartman 0]

We aren't safer than that day my friends. If anything we're at MORE risk. Keep pissing off these religious radicals and see what happens.

[Guest JMA]

We aren't safer than that day my friends. If anything we're at MORE risk. Keep pissing off these religious radicals and see what happens.

Why shouldn't we piss them off? Because they'll do something to us? Should we just live in fear?

 

No thanks.

[Guest Cerebus]

This may interest you all...

[k thx 0]

We aren't safer than that day my friends. If anything we're at MORE risk. Keep pissing off these religious radicals and see what happens.

Why shouldn't we piss them off? Because they'll do something to us? Should we just live in fear?

 

No thanks.

Theres a difference between not doing anything and pissing off people in the Middle East. In many foreigners eyes, especialy those who were never pro-USA, America is hated more now than before 9/11. Mainly because thay went into Iraq withought a UN sanction, and without finding WMDs, and haven't stabilised the region.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

We aren't safer than that day my friends. If anything we're at MORE risk. Keep pissing off these religious radicals and see what happens.

They'll be mad no matter what we do.

 

We've eliminated a lot of their money, killed a lot of them, have them concentrating on Iraq and have caught many of the masterminds behind the 9-11 attack.

 

I'd say we're still at risk but we're a hell of a lot safer now than we were on 9-11.

 

I have to admit it's fun watching a candidate die his own grave and then bury himself in it. Democrats had better pray to God, sell their souls to Satan whatever it takes to get Lieberman the nomination or Dean might make McGovern's campaign look like a thing of brilliance.

[k thx 0]

We aren't safer than that day my friends. If anything we're at MORE risk. Keep pissing off these religious radicals and see what happens.

They'll be mad no matter what we do.

 

We've eliminated a lot of their money, killed a lot of them, have them concentrating on Iraq and have caught many of the masterminds behind the 9-11 attack.

 

I'd say we're still at risk but we're a hell of a lot safer now than we were on 9-11.

For every terrorist you kill, theres annother 10 willing to treat him like a martyr and die for what he believed in. You can't stop terrorism by killing terrorists, only by stopping them wanting to be terrorists.

[Guest JMA]

I have to admit it's fun watching a candidate die his own grave and then bury himself in it. Democrats had better pray to God, sell their souls to Satan whatever it takes to get Lieberman the nomination or Dean might make McGovern's campaign look like a thing of brilliance.

Bah. Lieberman has no charisma AT ALL. The only reason he's attacking Dean is because he's a bitter, bitter man.

 

End of story.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Why shouldn't we piss them off? Because they'll do something to us? Should we just live in fear?

 

No thanks.

There's a difference between cleaning out the scum and making the rest of the people of there sympathetic to that scum.

 

That's why I'm not nuts about televised Saddam humiliation. While many who live in Baghdad and saw Saddam's massive palaces from a distance while living in crappy conditions saw knew that he was wasting their livelyhoods on his own greed, people in Iraq and other middle east countries who haven't seen Saddam's ego-stroking in person see an Arab leader who stood up to America. The last thing we want to do is make him a target of sympathy in the so-called "Arab street."

[k thx 0]

The only reason I can see that there would be no repeat of 9/11 is that there's no need to do it anymore. Anti-US terrorists have got to know that to do something like that again would only piss of the US and achieve nothing. It was a publicity exercise, and they don't need to repeat it again.

[Guest MikeSC]

We aren't safer than that day my friends. If anything we're at MORE risk. Keep pissing off these religious radicals and see what happens.

Why shouldn't we piss them off? Because they'll do something to us? Should we just live in fear?

 

No thanks.

Theres a difference between not doing anything and pissing off people in the Middle East. In many foreigners eyes, especialy those who were never pro-USA, America is hated more now than before 9/11. Mainly because thay went into Iraq withought a UN sanction, and without finding WMDs, and haven't stabilised the region.

Because, God knows, the U.N's blessing is a HUGE deal to Islamo-facist regimes.

 

I love this mindset. It's not like Arab terrorists never attacked U.S targets before.

 

Well, unless you forget WTC in 1993...

 

Or that ship in Africa...

 

Take away those and, yup, our response to 9/11 led to all of this.

 

What we need to do is simply make the price you pay for committing terrorism prohibitively painful.

-=Mike

[k thx 0]

We aren't safer than that day my friends. If anything we're at MORE risk. Keep pissing off these religious radicals and see what happens.

Why shouldn't we piss them off? Because they'll do something to us? Should we just live in fear?

 

No thanks.

Theres a difference between not doing anything and pissing off people in the Middle East. In many foreigners eyes, especialy those who were never pro-USA, America is hated more now than before 9/11. Mainly because thay went into Iraq withought a UN sanction, and without finding WMDs, and haven't stabilised the region.

Because, God knows, the U.N's blessing is a HUGE deal to Islamo-facist regimes.

 

I love this mindset. It's not like Arab terrorists never attacked U.S targets before.

 

Well, unless you forget WTC in 1993...

 

Or that ship in Africa...

 

Take away those and, yup, our response to 9/11 led to all of this.

 

What we need to do is simply make the price you pay for committing terrorism prohibitively painful.

-=Mike

Those past incidents are irrelevant, if only because Bush didn't declare a war on terrorism, and in many dissidents eyes a war on Arab nations, after them.

 

The key to stopping terrorism is to make it not worth taking place. We haven't got to that stage yet, but likewise annother 9/11 wouldn't cause complete outrage among anti-US people.

[Vyce 0]

That's why I'm not nuts about televised Saddam humiliation.

 

What humiliation?

 

Showing him getting picked at for lice? Showing them checking his not-so-pearly whites?

 

If there are Arab nations or individuals who are incensed that a genocidal madman is shown like this on their TV, than there really is no fucking hope for those people. At all.

[Guest MikeSC]

Those past incidents are irrelevant, if only because Bush didn't declare a war on terrorism, and in many dissidents eyes a war on Arab nations, after them.

 

The key to stopping terrorism is to make it not worth taking place. We haven't got to that stage yet, but likewise annother 9/11 wouldn't cause complete outrage among anti-US people.

So, we should ignore their PRIOR terrorism (that we DID ignore, mind you) and not do ANYTHING to them?

 

Screw that.

 

The sub-human monkeys who perpetrate this crap wish to attack us? We should make their lives as miserable as humanly possible. You want a fight? We'll be MORE THAN HAPPY to give you one. We ignored terrorism in the past and, guess what --- we got MORE of it and it got WORSE.

 

So, from now on, you attack --- we attack MUCH HARDER.

 

Another 9/11 probably wouldn't cause outrage amongst the anti-U.S people. Our response, though, would cause even less outrage out of me.

 

Let 'em rot.

-=Mike

[k thx 0]

Those past incidents are irrelevant, if only because Bush didn't declare a war on terrorism, and in many dissidents eyes a war on Arab nations, after them.

 

The key to stopping terrorism is to make it not worth taking place. We haven't got to that stage yet, but likewise annother 9/11 wouldn't cause complete outrage among anti-US people.

So, we should ignore their PRIOR terrorism (that we DID ignore, mind you) and not do ANYTHING to them?

 

Screw that.

 

The sub-human monkeys who perpetrate this crap wish to attack us? We should make their lives as miserable as humanly possible. You want a fight? We'll be MORE THAN HAPPY to give you one. We ignored terrorism in the past and, guess what --- we got MORE of it and it got WORSE.

 

So, from now on, you attack --- we attack MUCH HARDER.

 

Another 9/11 probably wouldn't cause outrage amongst the anti-U.S people. Our response, though, would cause even less outrage out of me.

 

Let 'em rot.

-=Mike

So, your response to terrorism is to kill all terrorists? That doesn't work: it'll only make terrorists out of their relatives. Terrorists aren't sub-human: they're ordinary people driven to extra-ordinary measures. That doesn't excuse it, but it does mean that it can be avoided. Yes, you've gotta show that terrorism will not be tolerated and that you'll kill anyne who plots or carries out those deeds. However, going into Iraq for no justified reason (at least when compared to other nations which need our help more) when there is widespread anti-US feeling in the Middle Esast isn't gonna help. It's just gonna increase anti-US sentiment, and thus increase terrorism.

[BX 0]

Give it up, he ain't gonna agree with you.

 

Commentator: Yes! Whenever bicycles are broken, or menaced by International Communism, Bicycle Repair Man is ready!

 

::Cut to commentator in garden with earphones on, and in front of microphone, which is on a garden table::

 

Commentator:  Ready to smash the communists, wipe them up, and shove them off the face of the earth... 

 

::his voice rises hysterically::

 

Commentator: Mash that dirty red scum, kick 'em in the teeth where it hurts.

 

::commentator rises from his canvas chair, and flails about wildly, waving script, kicking over table, knocking down sunshade::

 

Commentator: Kill! Kill! Kill! The filthy bastard commies, I hate 'em! I hate 'em! Aaargh! Aaargh!

 

Replace the communists with Muslims, and you get the basic jist of Mike's attitude towards them.

[Guest MikeSC]

Give it up, he ain't gonna agree with you.

 

Commentator: Yes! Whenever bicycles are broken, or menaced by International Communism, Bicycle Repair Man is ready!

 

::Cut to commentator in garden with earphones on, and in front of microphone, which is on a garden table::

 

Commentator:  Ready to smash the communists, wipe them up, and shove them off the face of the earth... 

 

::his voice rises hysterically::

 

Commentator: Mash that dirty red scum, kick 'em in the teeth where it hurts.

 

::commentator rises from his canvas chair, and flails about wildly, waving script, kicking over table, knocking down sunshade::

 

Commentator: Kill! Kill! Kill! The filthy bastard commies, I hate 'em! I hate 'em! Aaargh! Aaargh!

 

Replace the communists with Muslims, and you get the basic jist of Mike's attitude towards them.

Wow, and you seem to ignore the similarity in terms of pure evil of those two groups.

 

Just remember one little thing --- if they saw you, they'd have NO problem killing YOU.

-=Mike

[Guest JMA]

What we need to do is plan for the future of the Middle East: i.e. children. A large number have not yet been corrupted by theocratic goverments or anti-US rhetoric.

[BX 0]

Thats nice.

 

Do you like balls, Mike?

 

::hands Mike a teeball set::

 

[Justice 0]

BX, please stop the flamingbaiting. You are just gonna get yourself banned if you just flame Mike wherever he posts. I only say this as a friendly warning.

 

On Topic:

 

So, your response to terrorism is to kill all terrorists? That doesn't work: it'll only make terrorists out of their relatives.

 

That's way too general a statement. What if their relatives disagreed with them? Only a very small amount of people will become terrorists because of our actions, and it was likely that they would have become terrorists anyways. Another question: If killing terrorists only creates more terrorists, why fight them? Are you suggesting that we just stop fighting them?

 

And I completely disagree with your statement on the War on Terror: They thought we were after them long before Bush declared the War on Terror. To simply think that they are coming in force now is because we are embroiled in a War on Terror is naive; it's more a result of our foreign policy and action being strictly centered around the Middle East, creating more openings for Terrorist attacks on our troops that is occuring.

 

Terrorists aren't sub-human: they're ordinary people driven to extra-ordinary measures.

 

They may HAVE been normal people, but once one makes the jump to killing people to complete a political objective they have fallen outside the norm. A serial killer could be a normal person before, but once he starts summarily murdering people we don't call him normal again, now do we?

 

Yes, you've gotta show that terrorism will not be tolerated and that you'll kill anyne who plots or carries out those deeds.

 

... But that contradicts what you said above saying that killing more terrorists will only create more. Should we only kill the ones without families or something?

 

However, going into Iraq for no justified reason (at least when compared to other nations which need our help more) when there is widespread anti-US feeling in the Middle Esast isn't gonna help.

 

The reason behind invading Iraq has NO BEARING on these people attacking us. If we had gone in because we said "Saddam is evil", they would have dismissed that just as heartily. Terrorists don't look at our reasons; they choose to make those up for us to further their own causes.

 

Going into Iraq certainly didn't hurt, either: it shows that we are now making an effort to root out the evil in the Middle East and attack those who have supported them in the past. A more aggressive stance puts the terrorist on the defensive rather than the offensive. Think of it this way: if the Al-Qaida All-Stars are filtering across the border into Iraq to attack armed Marines, that means they can't try to get into the US and attack our civilians. By doing so we protect our people while drawing them into the open where we can engage them on our terms (Even engaging them in a guerilla war is far more advantageous to us than trying to find them in our own country).

 

It's just gonna increase anti-US sentiment, and thus increase terrorism.

 

Of course freeing the people of Iraq helped increase Pro-US sentiment in that country. Of course it polarized terrorists in the area, the good far outweighs the bad here.

 

From your second post:

 

The key to stopping terrorism is to make it not worth taking place. We haven't got to that stage yet, but likewise annother 9/11 wouldn't cause complete outrage among anti-US people.

 

We haven't done this yet? We've shown that we will come to your area, kill off your suppliers, take your supporters out of power, and find and kill you like the rats you are. How do you not make something like 9/11 not worth it without what we've done already?

 

And finally, your first post:

 

The only reason I can see that there would be no repeat of 9/11 is that there's no need to do it anymore. Anti-US terrorists have got to know that to do something like that again would only piss of the US and achieve nothing. It was a publicity exercise, and they don't need to repeat it again.

 

B.S. 9/11 was not just about publicity, it was trying to hurt us as much as possible. They don't care about pissing us off anymore: These people are doing open battle with tanks and Marines right now. Do you think they care about pissing the US off anymore? 9/11 is the epitomy of what a terrorist attack should be and they are, without doubt, going to try and stage another one. Killing 3,000 infidels with 19 men is DEFINITELY a tasty prospect to them.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Because, God knows, the U.N's blessing is a HUGE deal to Islamo-facist regimes.

Well, it does make their claims that America is pushing them around look unfounded.

 

I've somewhat believed that terrorism on the level of 9/11 is almost impossible. The fact that 9/11 even got pulled off must be a fluke, because it's taken how many years for them to be able to do something that massive once?

[Justice 0]

Because, God knows, the U.N's blessing is a HUGE deal to Islamo-facist regimes.

Well, it does make their claims that America is pushing them around look unfounded.

 

I've somewhat believed that terrorism on the level of 9/11 is almost impossible. The fact that 9/11 even got pulled off must be a fluke, because it's taken how many years for them to be able to do something that massive once?

Well, they could always say "The UN is just a tool of the US to look as though it has the support of the world" because, let's face it, there still would have been massive protests even IF the UN had led the way into Iraq. It's just how it is sometimes.

 

9/11 was indeed an attack that took a very long time to plan and get off. But the claim that they probably aren't trying to do it again because they have nothing to gain off it is incredibly naive. They are looking to cause as much death and destruction in the name of their cause as they possibly can. What better way than that?

[BX 0]

This might be the wrong thread, but I think the assertions that the "Homeland" is a brickwall now to be absurd. How many times have we heard of citizens testing the airports, getting items past them and onto the plane? I mean, holy shit, that kid from North Carolina placed a bag of clay, boxcutters and bleach on TWO planes, where they remained for at least a month, only to be discovered when he EMAILED the FBI about it. That's ridiculous, and it goes against this Steel Curtain DEFENSE theory that Marney and others are heaping upon us.

 

As mentioned before, 9/11 took years to plan, at least 5 or 6. We've seen bits and pieces of this from the failed Project Bojinka. If these people intend to strike again, it won't be anytime soon. I believe it'll take a similar amount of time to probe our new defenses, much like the guy from Carolina did. And they WILL find ways around our security, or international security. Socks around their neck, filled with plastic explosive, for Christs sake!

 

I'm not predicting another 9/11 magnitude event, but someone, sometime in the near future, will get off another hit on us. So what are we going to do about it?

 

Kill them all first? Please.