Can Dean challenge * on the war on terrorism?

[MIMStigator]

Is Dean's support for * on terrorism going to hurt him if he his nominated? I think these quotes will come back to haunt Dean

<snip>
He had been asked where he would find fault with President Bush, and he replied, "As far as domestic policy is concerned, I can't think of anything he's done that I agree with." He ticked off a list of Bush "outrages," ranging from an education bill he called the "largest unfunded mandate in history" to Bush's "appointment of ideologues to the courts." Heads were nodding in agreement.

And then he added, almost as a throwaway line, "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0630-07.htm

[Cuban_Liberal]

1. He said that over a year-and-a-half ago.

A lot has changed since then--- a LOT.

[MIMStigator]

2. Doesn't matter because * never did a good job on terrorism

I don't agree with Clark or Dean when they said they were doing a good job but at least Clark doesn't say he never thought they were like Dean.

[Cuban_Liberal]

3. Actually...

Bush was doing a decent job on terrorism, at one point; of course, he could resist the temptation to expand his 'war on terror' to include all sorts of objectives that had nothing to do with it. As I said, the world has changed a LOT since Dean spoke those words, just as it's changed a lot since general clark said some things that don't look all that great, in isolation.

[wtmusic]

13. agree

we've committed $612 billion to Iraq, 98% of container ships go uninspected and Russia's nuclear fuel is largely unaccounted for.

It's a different story now.

[Democrats unite]

5. But he still said them.

eom

[Cuban_Liberal]

6. Let's not turn this into a 'he said them' thread, shall we?

Those get ugly very quickly, and 'people who live in glass houses', and all that, you know?

[Democrats unite]

12. Yes how well I do now

all one has to do is read previous threads.

He said it he has to deal with it like so many times people bring up what Clark did in the 80's. Whats fair for one is fair for all.

on edit: the 80's twenty some odd years ago, not a year and a half ago.

[mikehiggins]

4. Look, Bush lied

That's all Dean has to keep saying.

"Bush lied and I supported him like almost everyone else in this country. But he lied and now I'm here to tell you there is no room in the White House for a man who deliberately lied to the American people and caused the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers."

"Bush lied. People died."

"Bush lied. People died."

<<<repeat as needed>>>

Just what the doctor ordered.

And I'm a Clark-ista but if Dean gets the nod I'll be right out there chanting the mantra!

[The Magistrate]

7. Gov. Dean Will Not be Able To Do This Effectively

This has nothing to do with any previous statements he made have made: he has no particular credibility in the matter, and the people are somewhat disposed, as a general thing, to view Republicans and rightists as more competent to deal with such matters than Democrats and leftists. Any disparagements of the current policies Gov. Dean should make will be viewed by most people as ill-advised posturing, if not as out-right anti-Americanism, after the counter-attackls orchestrated by the Republican party operatives in the campaign. It will not matter if they are the most sensible and sound comments and proposals imaginable; that is not how they will be perceived.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[lurk_no_more]

11. Good to see you back Magistrate

it was reported here you were ill, I hope everything is better now!


And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[IndianaGreen]

8. The war on terrorism is a sham and a fraud!

The war on terrorism is the pretext being used by the Bush regime to expand American imperialism and hegemony throughout the world. More disturbing is the use of the "war on terror" as a pretext to provide military and economic assistance to some of the most repressive regimes in the world, often against domestic insurgencies having nothing to do with Al-Qaeda.

Victims of sham 'war on terrorism' : Afghan poverty deepens, fighting grows
By Leslie Feinberg

Sept. 18, 2003--The Bush administration is using the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to squeeze billions of dollars more out of U.S. taxpayers, to pay for the Pentagon's ongoing military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House had used the Sept. 11 attacks as a justification to launch a bloody, high-tech war against the impoverished people of Afghanistan in the name of a supposed "war on terrorism."

On Sept. 6--the day before President George W. Bush delivered a televised speech asking the U.S. Congress to authorize an additional $87 billion for the occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan--the Guardian of London published an article by Michael Meacher, a senior Labor Party member of Parliament and until June a member of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's cabinet. The piece was headlined, "This war on terrorism is bogus."

Referring to Afghanistan, the first country to be hit in the "endless war," Meacher wrote: "Until July 2001 the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, the U.S. representatives told them 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.'"

http://www.iacenter.org/afghan-shamwar.htm

[Bertrand]

15. Good Post

eom

[lurk_no_more]

9. While * has done a lousy job on terrorism

I see nothing that would point to where dean could/would do a better job, his record in Vermont on the one power plant is enough to discredit dean on national security with regards to terrorism.

He somehow found the money to build a bigger prison, but was unable to increase security on a single power plant, if nothing else it shows a lack of security being one of his major priorities or concerns.

So to answer your question, no I don't think dean can adequately challenge * on this and this will be a big one.


And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[markus]

10. After finishing Franken's chapter on Operation Ingore

I think a duck could challenge Bush on terrorism. He failed miserably in the time from his innagural up until 9/11, and has diverted us into the War on Iraq.

If this isn't the central theme of the election, and if the media gives Bush* et al a free ride on theier failures and their criminal desertion from the war on terror into Iraq, then we're probably doomed anyway.

[jpak]

14. A few points...

On 9/11/01, Bush sat reading "The Pet Goat" for 20 minutes after his Chief of Staff had informed him that "America is under attack".

During the seige of the Afghan city of Koduz, the Bush administration allows the Pakistani military to evacuate hundreds of Al Queda and Taliban fighters. After their escape from US forces, these fighters regroup in NW Pakistan.

Because of Bush Iraq war plans, not enough military assets are assigned to the war in Afghanistan.

Because of Bush's on-the-cheap Afgan war strategy, the US did not have sufficient forces to surround the Al Queda stronghold of Tora Bora. Osma Bin Laden escapes.

The Mullah Omar escapes US forces as well.

Bush fails to ask for a single penny of aid for Afghanistan in latest budget. Afgan opium production soars and funds anti-US pro-Al Queda forces.

During invasion of Iraq, US forces fail to secure Iraqi nuclear weapons sites (oil fields have priority). These sites are extensively looted. Unknown quantities of radiological materials (dirty bomb material) fall into the hands of unknown individuals and groups.

Millions of dollars have been spent combatting nonexistent terror threats. Duct tape and plastic sheeting scare. (no evidence for dirty bomb attack). Smallpox scare (no evidence that Iraq or anyone else has smallpox virus). Orange Alert after Orange Alert.

Just a few I can think of....

[Upfront]

16. Dean

First he is to angry with B###, then he is wrong for saying something good about B###. Sense Dean said this much has changed and I think he cleared up what he now thinks with his we are no safer after we caught Saddam statement. He was promptly attacked for that true statement. Do you all feel safer? I don't. It is tough to run for President these days. lol