Dean Cites Terror Alert As Vindication (UK report: Guardian)

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

NASHUA, N.H. (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean on Friday cited the higher terror alert and the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq in arguing that he was right to say Saddam Hussein's capture didn't make America safer.

``They got all excited, but here we are,'' Dean told a town-hall meeting. ``We've lost 10 more troops and F-16s are escorting foreign passenger jets into our air space because we're now more worried than we were before.''

Last month, Dean's rivals assailed the front-runner when he said within a day of the Iraqi leader's capture that his apprehension had not made the United States safer, a direct contradiction of President Bush. Since then, the national terrorism alert has been raised to orange and U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq.

``I can assure you it's not Saddam who's threatening to bomb airplanes,'' Dean said. ``It's al-Qaida. We've not paid attention to al-Qaida. We've spent $160 billion, lost over 400 servicemen, and wounded and permanently maimed over 2,000 people because we picked the wrong target.''


More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3579159,00.html

[54anickel]

1. Good for him! I wish they would all keep the heat on Shrub and lighten

up on each other!

[Tadah]

24. Dean is rove's buddy..

Dean is helping Rove re-enforce the myth that 911 was real and that the terror alert system also has significance.

in reality, if 911 was a fake, then we have no reason to fear terrorists.

what we don't know is: "who is behind all this?"

Wes Clarke was to put $40 billion into homeland security. Say hello to the militarization of the police force, just so our economy grows!

[CJCRANE]

25. 9-11 was real and

the al-Qaeda terrorists were real. What is fake is attacking a country not directly connected to 9-11 or Al-Qaeda and pretending that that makes everyone safer.

[Zhade]

50. In all fairness...

...we only know it was al Qaeda because the lying Bushies told us so.

This is why, unlike some so-called progressives on this board, I would like to see an actual trial to determine the real culprit behind 9/11.

The poster makes a good point in a reactionary, roundabout way: the "war on terror" is actually a war on freedom. OUR freedom.

As far as Dean being Rove's buddy...ehhh, no, haven't seen anything to convince me of that particular allegation...!

[lariokie]

32. Say hello to another four years of Bush

Karl Rove's great strength is his ability to drive wedges among the differing factions of his opposition. Take a look in the mirror if you want to see Karl Rove's Buddy.

If you are not for Bush's opponent in the General Election, a good case can be made that you are for Bush. By default you become Karl's good bud.

[Melodybe]

2. Glad to see some media actually giving Dean credit for being right!

[doubleplusgood]

3. too bad it's the UK media

...and not ours

[JenniferO]

4. Another idiotic comment by the out of control Dean

No one said terrorism would stop dead in its tracks. This moron is going to make sure Bush wins. Somebody put a gag on him.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

6. Welcome to DU (I think) You might want to read the rules b4 posting

in such an inflammatory way.


Alert!

[dutchdemocrat]

7. blah, blah blah

Post number five and your colour comes through leetle disruptor. Bye.

Dean is telling it well. At least he has the guts to stand up to chimpy's little AWOL's ass.

[patdem]

9. And who is your nominee, JenniferO?

[madfloridian]

12. Your post is insulting to our candidate.

Could you fix it, please.

[fjc]

17. Bush said that Iraq was the front lines of the war on terror.

That's pretty close to saying that terrorism will stop there. Welcome to the DU. You're dismissed.

[worldgonekrazy]

20. I beg to differ

The perception was that capturing Saddam would somehow stem terrorist attacks abroad and the likelihood of terrorist attacks in the United States. Dean said that this wasn't true, and is now pointing to the increased terror alerts and continual terrorist attacks to prove it. A very smart thing to say, IMO. Now Americans are going to be scratching their heads and saying "why the hell did we go after Saddam anyway?"

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

22. Buy-bye.... RIP

[westman]

37. You are, of course, completely correct.

Dean is crippling the '04 Democratic candidate (probably himself, unfortunately).

[lariokie]

47. Thank you for sharing...

your opinion with us. Now, regardless of your opinion I certainly hope you will support whomever wins the Democratic primary.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

5. It's an AP story.... It's being picked up by others now. n/t

[westman]

36. When you cut off a chicken's head,

the chicken continues to run for a period of time. Now, think of the Iraqi resistance as the chicken, and Saddam as the head. Of course, the resistance will still function with Saddam gone, if only for a period of time.

Getting Saddam was the right thing to do. The world IS safer, and will be more so as more terror leaders are terminated. Terminated, with extreme prejudice.

Dean is making a huge mistake by taking this stand. He is setting the Democrats up for a huge defeat this year.

I hope we can keep the filibuster in the Senate...

[lariokie]

46. Of chiken heads and wars

You are right, chickens do run around after their heads have been cut off. But I'm afraid the leap from there to the Iraqi resistance is a bit more than even an Okie is willing to swallow.

You apparently believe we are in Iraq to make the world a safer place. I would suggest that the only, ONLY way the world will be a safer place is when the real reason we are in Iraq has been exposed, and when Dubya is long gone.

If you want to know why we are in Iraq--and for that matter Afghanistan--read "The World Chessboard" by Zbigniew Brzezinski. He explains very clearly and succinctly why we must rule the world, and why Afghanistan and Iraq are critical to the mission. By the way, he wrote the book in 1997, long before 9/11/2001.

[Zhade]

52. Psst - Grand Chessboard - otherwise, excellent post!

NT!

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

48. If you believe the world is safer without Saddam, try a midnight

walk through Tikrit or Bagdad. Please.

Or, you are simply at the wrong website.

[Zhade]

51. Wow, I want some of whatever you're smoking!

Hussein was hardly the sole motivating force behind the Iraqi resistance.

Yes, I said resistance. As in, resisting the illegal invasion and occupation of their country. Pro-Saddam or not, they still see the US troops as an invading force, and they are correct in that determination.

Hussein was a "terror leader" the way I'm the Pope. A leader in terror against Iraqis, yes. A leader of worldwide terrorists? Please. If you're here at DU, you must know that's bullshit.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

8. perfect

another perfect statement from Dean. Absolutely correct too, Saddam's capture was sure a great party and a great reason for Bush to pat himself on the back - but here we are. Has the Iraqi resistance been affected? No. Has it affected the war on terror? No. This is another case of Dean being right despite how the message is being received.

[JenniferO]

13. Harold Ford agrees with me

"The World is a Much Safer Place with Saddam out of power" Harold Ford told Bill Maher on his show this summer. I read somewhere that Dean was considering Ford as a running mate. Dean better watch it or no one will want to be his running mate.

[w13rd0]

14. Dean can consider him all he wants...

...Ford won't be eligible, he's too young. But just go ahead and shoot your mouth off. We're not safer, our resources have been diverted due to lies. Harold Ford is wrong.

[pinto]

16. I might feel the world's a safer place with my mother-in-law outta power,

but it doesn't mean I equate that with a pre-emptive strike on her hometown....

they call that intent.

And I mean legally.

[goforit]

29. You prefer Bush over Dean?

Hmmmmm...........

[lariokie]

33. Read someplace?

You are going to have to be more specific if you want us to take you seriously.

[Zhade]

53. Yeah, because no one wants to be part of a winning team!

:eyes:

So one guy -- with what credentials, again? -- makes a sweeping, if patently absurd, statement on Bill "Get Over 2000" Maher's show, and this is some sort of proof that your belief, despite all contrary evidence, is correct?

Making an appeal to (questionable) authority is a fallacy. Not very solid in a debate. Please try harder.

[Hieronymus]

10. Right on

:bounce:

[madfloridian]

11. I like these quotes.

SNIP..."``I can assure you it's not Saddam who's threatening to bomb airplanes,'' Dean said. ``It's al-Qaida. We've not paid attention to al-Qaida. We've spent $160 billion, lost over 400 servicemen, and wounded and permanently maimed over 2,000 people because we picked the wrong target.''

Dean said even though he opposed the Iraq war, his greatest fear now is that ``this administration will pull out of Iraq too early for political reasons,'' Dean said.

If that happens, al-Qaida will move into Iraq and become more powerful than ever.

``My fear is that the (Karl) Rove polls will tell him (Bush), 'You've gotta get out, you've gotta get out,' and he'll start doing that,'' Dean said, referring to Bush's chief political adviser. END SNIP

[Tadah]

15. dean supported the war as much as bush

Dean said even though he opposed the Iraq war, his greatest fear now is that ``this administration will pull out of Iraq too early for political reasons,'' Dean said

DEAN SUPPORTED THE WAR AS MUCH AS BUSH:

WHAT DEAN WANTED THE UN TO DO:

AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Peter Smith. I'm co-chair of the Coalition for a Strong United Nations. In that light, my question is, what changes would you make in our current US policies in general, in relation to the United Nations?

HOWARD DEAN: Let me be blunt about this, as I usually am. I don't approve of the President going to war in Iraq without the United Nations. But the United Nations is not blameless in this. The United Nations really had not enforced the previous resolutions in terms of disarming Iraq. And the United Nations does have a mandate to use military force in Iraq, as the United Nations, because Iraq is a threat to countries in its own region, because it likely possesses horrible weapons, including not nuclear weapons, so it's not a threat to the United States, but chemical weapons, which makes it a threat to all the countries around it, including some which they've used them on. So the way I would now try to reconstitute our relationship with the United Nations is simply to begin the dialogue, and say, "Look, we're interested in being part of the United Nations again, but it's very important to us that when we make a resolution that we enforce that resolution, and that we learn from this very difficult experience that we've had in Iraq that there are two parties here." The United States must really become a member of the world community. But the United Nations really does have to be serious about enforcement.

http://www.cs.umb.edu/jfklibrary/forum_dean.html

[madfloridian]

18. No, he did not.

What he said is true, but he did not say he supported the war.

[leQ]

19. i'm somewhat confused now

if Dean is saying the U.N. did nothing, which is reading into his words pretty heavy, i would have to remind everybody that inspections resumed. the U.N. doesn't have an army, so exactly how are they expected to 'enforce' the resolutions? or shouldn't we take 'enforcement' as something synonomous with military aggression?

[Tadah]

42. that's what scares me about Dean's answer

Most people think that the UN is a peace making body. The (permanent?) members of the security council, however, can create "enforcible" resolutions. That's about as much as I know.

Thus, a few countries have A LOT of control over world politics.

Dean seems to indicate that the UN should be the strong arm of the world.

When I've discussed this idea with others, they've told me that the UN should enforce its resolutions against Israel (human rights violations) first!

The UN doesn't seem to have an "even hand...," but people think so.

[Zhade]

55. Israel has ignored over sixty such resolutions.

Yes, the UN should find a way to enforce resolutions - ones directed at Israel as much as Iraq.

To suggest, and do, otherwise would be hypocrisy.

[pinto]

21. No one can support a war as much as Pres of US, from your link:

JOE KLEIN: Maybe I'll try and represent the Republican wing of the Democratic party. I think the war is on everybody's mind. It's front and center. And let me ask you a few questions about it. The first is, I think we all agree-- It's clear everybody agrees that we have to support our troops. How best do we do that? There are 115 nations at the United Nations today, I think, that proposed a resolution that we stop now and withdraw. There are some people who would argue that that's the best way to support our troops. Others, like General Barry McCaffrey last night, argue that the best way to support our troops is to put 200,000 more troops into the war zone. And that seems to be the emerging view of a lot of the old line Pentagon sorts. And then there are people who would say, "Let's just prosecute the war as it's being prosecuted now." Which of those three paths would you take?

HOWARD DEAN: For me to answer that question doesn't make any sense. I have no idea what the intelligence from the field shows. If it were up to me, we wouldn't be there now, because we would have gone to the United Nations and continued the inspections, and continued to disarm Iraq, which we were. So for me to make a choice about-- That's a complete Hobson's choice. I didn't get us into this. Unfortunately, I'm not President now, and I can't get us out of this. But I do think that at least as we voice our opinions-- and I think we should continue to voice our opinions about the war-- that we ought to be supportive, and differentiate ourselves into supporting the troops and saying, "We don't support the policy," at least if somebody supports the war. But I can't really legitimately and knowledgeable discuss the strategic implications of whether to withdraw right this minute or not. There are all kinds of complications that have to do with the safety of our troops, where we are, America's prestige in the world. That's a very complicated subject, and I just don't think it makes any sense for me to wade into that, particularly when I have no idea what the intelligence reports are.

[Robbien]

26. I do not think you are arguing with a Dean hater

this Tadah poster is also thinking about giving Bush a vote of confidence. He posted that in the 'Bush will Win' thread.

[Tadah]

28. no, I don't hate Dean...

ummmm.... Dean told people in NH (see CSPAN) that the president is less powerful than the health insurance industry-- that's why you can't have single-payer health care.

Dean also told the crowd that he would work with the countries around the world to improve labor and environmental standards to the point where jobs would come home but we'd have to pay more for our products.

Nobody asked Dean why he expected the domestic insurance companies to be harder to work with then the multinational companies who benefit from today's trade rules... If I get to meet Dean, I will ask him that question.

A vote of confidence means that I expect about the same from both Dean and Bush.

You'll notice that I support NCLB and Dean doesn't. I'm not a centrist but Dean is.

I don't hate Dean but, so far, I don't see much that excites me.

As far as I can see, all of the governors across America can implement Vermont's programs without a Dean presidency.

[madfloridian]

31. What do you know about NCLB?

Do you realize all the implications of it?

[Tadah]

40. some...

While visiting a public school in NYC, I saw a teacher who mouthed off to a custodian in public. Some students laughed as the teacher threatened to "make more work" for him.

I know that NCLB isn't perfect but many countries use national tests. The Bristish newspapers reported today that they're going to make their tests tougher "to make sure that the right people get into college."

If our schools aren't reformed, then the graduates can't compete in the economy-- which is the encompassing problem, in my opinion.

It is estimated that 10,000,000 teens in the US can't economically compete.

Even though Dean says he doesn't like vouchers, Vermont has used them for years. The NEA recently decided they were a threat (I think around 1998) even though the students weren't complaining.

And, if you watch Dean's New Hampshire Town Hall (on CSPAN), he talks about "learning by computer" to make himself sound hip.

Thus, like it or not, public schools will have to compete with alternative methods of education and the common denominator between them will probably be testing. That's the only way we'll know what works and what doesn't. Like it or not, tests will guide our investments and be the currency.

Dean supported NAFTA and I expect him to support the FTAA. The FTAA will allow high-skilled labor to come into the US, so teachers can be imported if their jobs can't be exported or made electronic.

Since government is about the division of resources, I chose Kucinich since he seems to support standards along side social grace.

[papau]

35. Dean supports NCLB if funded with the extra $13 Billion that was promised

As it is currently, it is an unfunded mandate that is screwing up other school funding and diverting monies in school payouts to Tech companies run by Bush buddies, all the while ending local control.

Bush lied about the funding and his motive.

[Tadah]

43. schools have always been pork projects...

"Bush lied about the funding and his motive."

schools have always been pork projects which include construction contracts, book sales, etc...

with the economy contracting somewhat, both democrats and republicans are fighting harder than ever over how education money gets spent.

Kucinich wants full funding (i.e. if we fund failed weapon's, we should fund failed schools) but he also implies that the money needs to be allocated correctly.

In St. Paul Minnesota, 50% (about $6,500 per student) is spent on administration. That's a lot of money!

Yes, the tech industry wants part of the $13,000, or so, that is spent on each student. Howard Dean supports this because he talked about "computerized education" in his New Hampshire town hall meeting (video on CSPAN).

I would love colleges to put out "advanced courses" on DVD.

It's the wave of the future and today's educators will have to start changing their ways to stay economically relavent.

[fjc]

23. Well, you're mis-representing it a bit.

He said he would have had the war under the auspices of the United Nations. That is not the same kind of support for this war as George Bush. He has never said anything different as far as I know, with this exception. Soon after the war started, the rational used for it by this administration, and the intelligence used to back it up, unraveled. Many, including and particularly Dean, feel we were lied to about reasons for the war. But everyone at the time thought that Iraq had at least chemical weapons because they had used them in the past. So it was reasonable to say that Iraq was a threat to its neighbors. That should have been handled multilaterally. That is what Dean is saying there. Now we know, or at least we're pretty sure, the didn't even have chemical weapons.

[Tadah]

34. Salon also noted that Dean was hawkish...

I don't approve of the President going to war in Iraq without the United Nations. But the United Nations is not blameless in this. The United Nations really had not enforced the previous resolutions in terms of disarming Iraq.
...
And the United Nations does have a mandate to use military force in Iraq,
...
but it's very important to us that when we make a resolution that we enforce that resolution

This is from Salon:

Salon's Jake Tapper summarizes Dean's oft-repeated position on attacking Iraq: "Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

(http://www.kucinich.us/antiwar.php">source)

Dean wasn't against going to war with Iraq War. Rape (unilateral) and gang-rape (multilateral) rape are both bad.

Sanctions are a form of pre-emptive war-- Bush didn't invent it. That's why I support the department of peace because we need better answers in the future. We need to embed peace in the government.

[Tadah]

41. Dean supported the war

He said he would have had the war under the auspices of the United Nations.

In my book, Dean supported the war but might have disagreed with Bush who should fight it.

Only the (permanent?) members on the security council can create legally enforcable (by force) resolutions. Thus, if the security council is essentially the world community, it is very small.

I think that France, Russia, and Germany didn't go along with the war because of their Iraqi oil interests.

In that sense, the US pre-emptively took their oil rights. That move was pretty close to Iran nationalizing their oil rights and telling the US corporations to leave.

I think the US can make peace with France, Russia, and Germany by recognizing their oil rights. In the end, I think everybody will be happy because it is a fight over money and not principle.

I'm not saying that I supported the war, I am only giving my view of global politics.

[Le Taz Hot]

44. Enough of this

Jaysus! It would be nice to have read the responses to this thread without the bashing.

<flush>

[Kellanved]

45. BS

Read the UN numbers; the main buyer of Iraqi oil was the US, not France, not Russia and not Germany.

[mouse7]

57. Here's what Dean actually said in full context

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=33638

Post 11 on this thread has full transcript so you can read Dean's quotes in it's proper context. Links there as well.

The short version is Dean stated Iraq was not an "imminent threat" to the US and therefore wouldn't qualify for military action under International Law.

[xchrom]

27. whooo -- yes -- bash bush

that's what i want to hear from our candidates -- any candidate -- attack bush point out the obvious lie we are all living with.
orange alert = unsafe
nearly 500 dead soldiers = unsafe
helicopters shot down by insurgents = unsafe
escorting passenger planes with fighter jets = unsafe
unsafe unsafe unsafe

[goforit]

30. Way to tell it like it is DEAN!!...Bush has done nothing but create terror

Bush's dream is that we all live in his Orange and Red alert
fears for ever!!!!!

[Polemonium]

38. Yeah call a spade a spade

or in this case shrub an amplifier for terror

[Guaranteed]

39. The other candidates should never have swayed back Bush-side

I knew this would happen. Dean is in the right place- he knew it too.

We will NOT be intimidated.

[aeon flux]

49. Dean is awesome!

Why could Bush win in 2004? Because he captured Saddam? Cause thats all shrub has going for him.

Looks now even that will backfire on his dumbass. Shrub's got nothing!(except maybe the BBV machines).

[aeon flux]

54. Learn to read!

"No one said terrorism would stop dead in its tracks. This moron is going to make sure Bush wins. Somebody put a gag on him. "

This is what Dean said in the article. I wish people would learn to read before flapping their mouth off. And Dean is absolutely right. The caputre of Saddm did nothing to make us safer. The terror alerts are higher than they've ever been.

``I can assure you it's not Saddam who's threatening to bomb airplanes,'' Dean said. ``It's al-Qaida. We've not paid attention to al-Qaida. We've spent $160 billion, lost over 400 servicemen, and wounded and permanently maimed over 2,000 people because we picked the wrong target.''

[jamesinca]

56. Go Dean, Go Dean and all the others who have been saying this

For all of you who have been quoting the news as a reason to bash Dean or any other candidate on this, here is a news clip to help shut your mouth with. For those of you who have been supporting Dean and other candidates comments with news articles, here is something to have a bigger mouth with. In the parts of the article I have cut and pasted below, every paragraph says foreign fighters, changing tactics, different targets etc... It does not say they have slowed down the attacks, Dean is wrong, the war is over or that there is an end in sight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insurgents shot down a U.S. military helicopter west of Baghdad on Friday, killing one soldier, and attackers posing as journalists fired assault weapons and rocket-propelled grenades at American paratroopers guarding the burning aircraft, the military said.

Elsewhere, Arab gunmen shot and killed a Kurd amid rising ethnic tensions in the northern, oil-rich city of Kirkuk, and a minor Baath party official was assassinated in an apparent revenge killing. An American tanker was set ablaze in a rebel attack, and coalition forces raiding a Sunni Muslim mosque arrested 32 suspected non-Iraqi Arab insurgents and seized an arms cache.

In Baghdad, U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said enemy fire likely brought down the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior that crashed near Fallujah, a flashpoint in the insurgency. Troops of the 82nd Airborne Division "are fairly convinced that it was enemy fire," Kimmitt said.

Soon after, five men "wearing black press jackets with 'press' clearly written in English" fired on U.S. paratroopers guarding the crash site, Kimmitt said. He said it was the first time he had heard of assailants in Iraq posing as journalists.

<SNIP>


Kimmitt said they seized explosives, guns and ammunition and arrested 32 people believed to be non-Iraqi Arabs "based on their dialect." The military says foreign Islamic militants opposed to the occupation have infiltrated from neighboring borders.

In the northern city of Mosul, a minor Baath Party official and Saddam-appointed dean of political science of Mosul University, Adel Jabar Abid Mustafa, was found Thursday with two gunshots to his head, according to the dean's brother, Salim Abid Mustafa.

Gunmen in Mosul have killed at least three judges appointed by Saddam's regime, as well as officers in a new Iraqi police force formed by the U.S.-led occupation.

<SNIP>

An 5,000-gallon oil tanker erupted in flames near a U.S. military base on the road to the western town of Ramadi on Friday. The military said it was in a convoy attacked with a roadside bomb, a grenade and small arms fire. Three American soldiers suffered burns and shrapnel wounds.

U.S. military commanders say rebel attacks on troops have decreased since Saddam's capture Dec. 13, but that insurgents may be shifting to softer, civilian targets. On New Year's Eve, a car bomb destroyed an upscale Baghdad restaurant, killing eight people.

In ongoing raids to hunt down former Saddam officials, U.S. soldiers captured Abu Mohammed, believed to be moving foreign fighters and cash through a tense area west of Baghdad, the military said Friday. Based on information gleaned from the arrest Thursday, the military seized another three suspects and some weapons.

<SNIP>

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/01/02/international1333EST0535.DTL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------