Strained credibility

[NJGeek]

from www.blogforamerica.com

-snip-
In the News: Strained Credibility
The editors of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin wonder today just which political party showed up to Sunday's debate in Iowa:

Howard Dean must have wondered whether he stumbled into a Republican Party rally on Sunday in Iowa.
The former Vermont governor, who has emerged as the front-runner for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, was supposed to be taking part in debate with the eight other candidates to carry the party's banner into battle against Republican George W. Bush this fall. But, from the sound of what some of the other Democrats were saying, it appeared that they were more interested in beating Dean than Bush.

What else can explain the objections to Dean's assertion that the United States is no safer as a result of the capture last month of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein?

Only over-the-top enthusiasts for the Bush administration's misguided rush to invade Iraq ever tried to suggest that country, or its leader, posed a serious threat to the United States. For all of his thuggery, Saddam was a secularist who was always at odds with Osama bin Laden and the fundamentalists who make up the al-Qaida terrorist network. And after a decade of bombings, sanctions and United Nations weapons inspections, it was obvious to anyone who cared to consider the facts that Saddam and what remained of his military forces were incapable of mounting an attack even on his neighbors in the Middle East.

As it turned out, Saddam and his minions were not even capable of mounting a credible military defense of their own country.

Despite the facts, the White House tried to spin the line that the beaten mess of a man hiding in that hole near Tikrit posed a threat. In doing so, they strained what was left of their credibility. The same must be said of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who repeated the Bush administration line on stage during Sunday's debate. Along with John Kerry and several of the other candidates who are trying to catch up with Dean, Lieberman has been taking Dean to task for failing to embrace the White House spin that says capturing Saddam made the United States safer. Lieberman claimed that he could not understand how anyone could say the nation was not safer after the apprehension of Saddam.

Dean responded by saying, as he always has, that Saddam is "a dreadful person," and by explaining, "I delighted to see him behind bars, and I hope he gets what he deserves." But, Dean added, "The fact is that since Saddam Hussein has been caught we've lost 23 additional troops. We now have for the first time American fighter jets escorting commercial airliners through American airspace."

Dean's point was clear, and clearly correct.
-snip-

[nomaco-10]

1. I don't even see it as a fight for the

White House as much as it is a fight between the two wings of the democratic party. I'm afraid it will be our undoing, but it is long past due that our party be redefined and I wouldn't be surprised if a third party emerged. It may be a century before we are back in power. We've got the Joe Liebermans, Zell Millers and Ralph Hall's to thank for this.

[funky_bug]

2. Dean is right on that

We are no safer, because Sadaam wasn't the threat we most fear. If we were supposedly so much safer, why did our security level elevate after he was emprisoned? Some say it's b/c of terrorist cells planting their tushies in Sadaam's old stomping ground.

Let's give credit where credit is due. Dean was right on the money, and it took a lot of guts for him to say what he said.