Wow...Letterman was NOT throwing softballs to Dean tonight.

[Guaranteed]

Letterman GRILLED Dean. The toughest I've ever seen him.

Dean did well, though.

His one slip up, which the audience reacted to with applause, was saying that if Iraq becomes a stable democracy, then Bush would have been right to do what he did.

[homerthompson]

1. yeah, cuz then that's justifying the means to the ends.

and shrub's means are wrong no matter what the outcome.

[Guaranteed]

Well, that's arguable either way.

In any case, the war was wrong, and Dean shouldn't have said that.

Letterman was just very, very tough on him.

[napi21]

10. Why are you picking on Dean? What he said was true!

If Iraq turns out to be a stable Democracy, Shrub will be considered to have been right. Dean was stating the truth. You may not like it, but it's true!

I don't think it's going to happen!!! Many countries have occupied the middle east, and the results are always the same. They leave after being outlasted in battle.

[madfloridian]

13. Yes, that is the way it would read in the future....won't happen though.

Technically he was right, and he hates it.

[Guaranteed]

14. I'm not picking on Dean at all.

I'm one of the strongest Dean supporters on this board.

Dean was RIGHT in everything that he said. The thing is, SHOULD he have said that in the middle of the race?

I think he realized he fucked up the second he said that. The look on his face....

[LiberalFighter]

17. "Considered to have been right" is the key phrase with the emphasis on

considered

[madfloridian]

32. That is what I was trying to say...he says this often.

It is true, I fear. But it will not happen unless we kill a million or so people....and I think we might.

[krkaufman]

31. No, it's NOT strictly true.

What is the timeline for Iraq reaching a stable democracy? How many must die before it occurs?

What if, enroute to a stable democracy, Iraq deteriorates into a 10+year civil war, and the reason it eventually stabilizes is because an entire ethnic population has been cleansed?

Would that be considered successful?

Besides, Bush's decision must be judged from a wider, global perspective. (Dare I say "global test"?) Bush's decision to invade Iraq snuffed our momentum in the fight against Al Qaeda, and has reversed the momentum, in fact.

What if Iraq becomes a democracy, but Afghanistan falls back under Taliban/Al Qaeda control? (more than it already has)

etc.

[Guaranteed]

38. No, you're definitely right. nt

[NewYorkerfromMass]

101. krkaufman is correct. It's a qualitative analysis and answer

a thousand grey areas to be covered.

[Skip Intro]

2. That's a f***ed up line, from Dean, or anyone else

How many Iraqis do we have to kill in order to make bush right?

Sorry, I didn't see it, so maybe context would soften that comment.

But really, its too damned late for bush to have been right. He's a motherf***ing mass-murderer is what he is.

I'm surprised and disappointed that Dean would say something like that.

[Cha]

I know...I think Dean thought..."What was I

thinking"??

[Guaranteed]

5. I think the thing to remember is that "stable and democratic"

in reference to the state of Iraq are very strong words. If that was accomplished, it truly WOULD be a helluva thing.

Problem is, the way we've gone about it, it'll never happen.

[incapsulated]

7. I think you missed the point

Edit: I was confusing your line with Dean's line, nevermind what I posted, lol.

DOH! :crazy:

[BlueStateGirl]

27. He didn't get a chance to finsih his comment..

He had started to say " I think it is becoming more and more apparent everyday..." but the applause cut it short.
He was about to say that it was obvious that is not the case. Iraq is not stable. And that Bush was incapable of getting the job done.

*Edited to fix last sentence

[madfloridian]

35. Then Letterman bombarded him with the "how do you know" stuff.

That audience was really weird for NYC, I think. Letterman's audiences are usually more receptive to truth.

[BlueStateGirl]

43. I actually got the feeling he wanted Dean to say how he knew.

Like Dave thought Dean was holding back a little about how he knew.

I think he did the same with Michael Moore, when he asked him if it would be possible for people to Debunk F-911. I got the feeling Dave actually wanted Michael to let it rip, and was trying to give him an avenue to do it, w/o lobbing a softball.

It's a more effective conversion technique than lobbing easily answered questions at someone. Attack a little, let the interviewer respond with conviction and people are more likely to believe it.

I *think* he started to do it with the Times article on intelligince that was held back. He asked Dean was it held back, was it faked. He asked the question like Dean was making a very serious charge and he wanted to give him the chance to answer it fully.


I don't know if it makes any sense, it's just the vibe I get from Dave sometimes. I think he's on our side.

Or he could have just been pissed that Dean didn't give him the straight answer on serving in Kerry's cabinet.

[Guaranteed]

45. Dave IS on our side.

But he's challenging us to make our case strongly.

[BlueStateGirl]

49. Exactly. n/t

[madfloridian]

54. BUT...Dean had to be cautious this close to the election.

Watch this board and Kos sometimes, you will know why. He will NOT do anything to jeopardize Kerry. The answers are all in the book.

[madfloridian]

50. I don't think Letterman was aware of the NYT article....nor

do I think he had read the book. All that is in the book, quite clearly. If you are having someone on, you read their book, especially a little one.

Letterman has right out loud said he likes Dean, but the things he was asking Dean could not answer without jeopardizing Kerry. They are in the book.

If Letterman had read the article, he would have known the answers.

[BlueStateGirl]

52. I think he wanted to get the answers out to a larger auidence than

those likely to read the book or the NYT article.

[Leilani]

75. A lot of tourists go to Letterman Show,

& some nights I m sure they outnumber NYers.

[Stephanie]

102. Letterman audiences are 99% tourists

Letterman doesn't like too many New Yorkers in his audience. LOL!

[arewenotdemo]

40. Agree totally

nt

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYCGirl]

106. If your're trying to compare the current Iraq debacle to WWII,

it can't be done, no matter how you try to twist it.

[nankerphelge]

3. Yes indeed...

Dave was not being kind and the repukes in the crowd did applaud that one slip up. Maybe Franz Ferdinand will come out and convert some of them with their pop-rock stylings. .

[Cha]

4. But, I think Dean recovered

when he said that nothing turns out right when you go in under false pretenses..paraphrasing here.

[Syrinx]

6. Letterman never lobs softballs to politicians

Dean said that Dave was tougher than reporters. And he was right.

[Cha]

9. Reporters should be so "tough"

on bush!!

[Syrinx]

12. you'll get no argument from me

I wish Bush would go on Letterman.

[fujiyama]

48. Bush did in '00

and Letterman did not treat him with kid gloves either. In fact, to this day, I haven't seen Bush have a tougher interview.

Letterman asked him about all the things 'real journalists' should have been asking him - death penalty, environment, etc.

I wish I had caught Dean on it. I'm sure Dean did ok (though that answer about Iraq being a stable demolcracy is odd). Letterman asked Kerry some great/tough questions when he was on a few weeks ago. Fortunately Kerry did well.

[Syrinx]

53. remember the eyeglass thing?

During a commercial Bush showed his contempt for human beings. Dave's producer came over to the desk to talk to her boss, and bush cleaned his eyeglasses on her sweater. That tells you everything you need to know about bush. And Letterman ran than clip for weeks.

[Maestro]

97. Rove let Shrub out of his bubble?

Don't think so but nice thought.

[Peanut Gallery]

96. rhetorical question, but

Why is it that comedians like Letterman and Jon Stewart are better journalists than journalists these days? :crazy:

[madfloridian]

8. History will say Bush was right if Iraq turns out ok.

That is the way the books will write it up. This is not a new comment, he has said this before....but it is usually in the context of the future assessment.

To the victor....and all that crap.

[LiberalFighter]

21. Only because the victors write history

But in the final analysis history will write that gw* illegally invaded another country, illegally held Iraqis as prisoners, illegally tortured and killed Iraqis, and illegally captured, held and tried Saddam Hussein.

[kentuck]

11. We have no choice but to assist Iraq in becoming stable....

Whether that means a "stable democracy" is another question. We need to help stabilize the country and then get our troops the hell out...

[DFLforever]

15. I think we are all aware Iraq will not become a stable democracy

The idea that it could is one of the great deceptions of the Bush gov't.

[Guaranteed]

16. That's basically what it comes down to. nt

[krkaufman]

34. I still believe it *can* become a stable democracy.

I just prefer not to think about the carnage between here and there.

[Guaranteed]

51. I don't think it's possible.

It can't become a SECULAR democracy, at least, because the majority of the people are Shiite. And we're not going to let the Shiites take power. And as long as we're not going to let them, we're going to stay in there. And as long as we stay in there, the longer we stay in there, especially without the UN and our allies, the bombings and shootings are just going to continue.

This thing is just such a fucking mess.

[CityHall]

18. Dean could have been better

He should have said that it isn't clear if B/C were lying to themselves or to us about Iraq WMD claims. That is, thay may just have approached it with blinders on (to be charitable).

Should have brought up the Kerry "we have no long term designs" issue to explain why Iraq will be more tractable under K/E. Should say that this election is a referendum on whether B/C policies represent America, or whether this administration was an anomaly. That defeating Bush would show that U.S. still has moral authority and that Abu Ghraib and extraordinary renditions aren;t what we stand for.

Should have said that B/C were clearly wrong in their predictions about how Iraqis would greet us, and about the level of resistance. That even if you recognize a need to displace Hussein, that the way they went about it was guaranteed to fail at everything except securing the oil suppy and contracts for Halliburton.

Just like in the primary, Dean starts good, but he's not quite quick enough under pressure.

[Guaranteed]

22. All good points, but they're just not Dean's.

Dean has his own philosophy, talking points and approach to the campaign.

[sandnsea]

89. Dean did very well

And you know coming from me, he did very well because I don't praise Dean lightly! I didn't like that one comment that if Iraq becomes stable Bush will have been right, he'll always have been wrong. But I don't think that took away from the rest of the interview. He made alot of good points, most importantly that our power comes from moral authority as much as from military might.

[madfloridian]

26. Remember Letterman kept saying...how do you know......

that Bush has lost the support of the world....over and over he said it...Heck I know that. Dean has been to Rome, Dubai, and London this month....he says the world despises us.

Letterman really put him on the spot and did not let the answers come out.

Key to this was that Dean said for goodness sake it is less 30 days before the election ......He was forced to be cautious or hurt Kerry.

Trust me, if he said one thing to hurt Kerry, he would be blamed at once.

[Guaranteed]

30. I know...I was thinking, God, please mention the international polls,

Dean.

[madfloridian]

33. I notice he did not say he had been overseas so much.

I wonder if he were asked not to say that? He knows, he has been there to hear the hatred.

[madfloridian]

65. Read my post further down. I rewatched. He did say a lot of that.

He was quite critical, very much so.

[madfloridian]

19. The audience was an odd mix.

We were never sure why they were applauding. I found it strange, like why they applauded for certain things. Very odd.

[Guaranteed]

23. They sounded very polarized.

All cheering loud- half for Bush, half for Dean and Kerry.

[Leilani]

76. Tourists vs Locals

[Syrinx]

20. Letterman just said O'Reilly is on tomorrow night

I hope he's tough on that guy. And I bet he will be.

[Guaranteed]

24. THAT should be very interesting to see. nt

[Guaranteed]

25. One last thing- did anyone feel the DEAD silence

when Dean was talking about other threats, NK and Iran, and then suddenly said OSAMA BIN LADEN? The room was already dead silent before that, but I swear it went into negative decibels right there. It was like a vacuum.

[incapsulated]

28. "It was like a vacuum."

Kinda like where Osama is.

He Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken.

I don't know, I didn't see it. Maybe it was because they took what he was saying seriously. :shrug:

[madfloridian]

29. Dead silence. Our country is really divided.

They can not even admit that we left two threats to become nuclear and went after a country that was no danger.

I think there was something odd in the audience.

[Guaranteed]

36. Well I don't mean that the audience "didn't applaud" what he was saying..

I mean...you remember Richard Clarke at the 9/11 hearings, when he said that invading Iraq greatly undermined the war on terror? Even the crickets shut up.

Dean continued talking after that, it wasn't like the audience didn't like hearing it. But it's just such a SHOCK on the nervous system to hear that.

Every time someone says "Where's Osama?" on national TV it's like a mass, ineffective cognitive dissonance occurs. The human mind just can't handle it.

Everyone knows it's true. They just...can't...handle it.

[madfloridian]

Maybe, but the audience was unpredictable entirely.

Are we really so afraid we can not face up to Iran and NK and Osama.
Probably.

[madfloridian]

73. He got a huge applause when he asked where Osama was.

I saw that on 2nd viewing.

[VOX]

94. I did notice this. And it was dead silence.

The idea that there's been all this bloodshed, effort and expense, and OBL is still at large, catches people short every time.

[LynnTheDem]

37. WHY is "stable democracy" so assumed by Americans to be the world's

dream?????

The ends now can justify the means???

Ignoring the vast majorities of citizens, INCLUDING THE IRAQIS, to INVADE and OCCUPY and KILL a lot of innocent people IS OK IF a "stable democracy" happens to emerge???

A "STABLE DEMOCRACY" is the be all and end all???

Who the HELL made Americans GOD to decide what the best form of government is for every nation????

That was not just a "slip up" by Dean; that was a major total complete FUCK UP by Dean.

And when the fuck are we INVADING AND OCCUPYING Saudi Arabia??? After all, 14 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, NONE WERE IRAQI; Saudi FINANCED the 911 hijackers; and Saudi sure as fuck doesn't have a "STABLE DEMOCRACY" either.

THIS is EXACTLY why the entire world sees Americans as god-damned ARROGANT.

[madfloridian]

39. He said it would be "considered" to be.......

Think about it. It would be for sure. Unfortunately. Dean totally disapproved of the war, and he made that clear that it was based on lies.

That is not what he meant at all, even though he did not get to finish.

[LynnTheDem]

46. Ok I'm calm-ish now...

Yes, the idiotic half of Americans in this country would deem the invasion and occupation to be worthwhile if a "stable democracy" ever were to emerge...however, that is the LAST THING the US government ever wants for nations rich in resources.

Name ONE dictator in the world over the past 50 years that America has NOT supported & financed.

I bet most Americans don't even know that the USA supported, trained and financed Osama bin Laden.

I bet most Americans don't even know that in August 2001 bush paid the Taleban $40 million gift money as a reward for their "war on drugs".

You know most Americans don't even know it was the USA that installed the Ba'ath Party in Iraq.

Just LAST YEAR bushCartel helped overthrow a democratically elected government.

Gee, it sure would be nice if WE IN AMERICA were to get a "STABLE DEMOCRACY" too!

So I agree with Dean, if he was saying that's what the idiots would say, and that he himself wasn't agreeing with such bullshit. :)

[madfloridian]

55. I know what he meant because it is one of his talking points.

He once said history would write Bush up as successful if it went well. He himself despises it.

[Guaranteed]

41. I agree with Dean in the sense that IF,

and this is a HUGE "IF," here, we can get this done quickly, minimize the Iraqi and coalition casualties to only a few tens of thousands, have a LEGITIMATE, yet somehow non-radical Iraqi government, throw out all the terrorists and not have bombings and shootings in the street, AND, for Christ's sake, protect OUR COUNTRY by finding and destroying Al Qaeda, then it will be a success.

But you can see what we have on our plate, here.

[LynnTheDem]

56. minimize Iraqi and coalition casualties to only a few tens of thousands

Are any of YOUR loved ones included in that "only a few tens of thousands"?


By the way, what does al Qaeda have to do with Iraq?

[Guaranteed]

57. The "tens of thousands" was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

We're already up to 20,000, at least, in any case.

My point is that a LEGITIMATE democracy (NOT a puppet government) can be ARGUED to be worth "a few tens of thousands" of people. Although it also can be argued that it's wrong for us to make that decision for them.

AND, I didn't say that Al Qaeda had anything to do with Iraq. My point there was that even if the Iraq invasion was a total success, with no one killed at all, if we don't destroy Al Qaeda then we only took our eye off the ball in MAKING the invasion- and, thus, it is NO success.

[LynnTheDem]

60. somewhat...

By WHOSE OPINION is a "legitimate" ANYTHING worth 20,000 lives???

By AMERICAN opinion when it isn't AMERICAN lives being killed in the tens of thousands???

Would you willingly stand by and allow me to blow YOUR child or spouse or parent to bits for ANYTHING???

Would there be ANYTHING you would say was worth it for me to splatter your loved one's blood and brains and bones across a brick wall?

How about worldwide peace forever more. Would you be willing then, for me to explode one of your loved one's body into little pieces of flesh and gristle and blood?

I know I sure as hell would NOT be willing. And neither are the Iraqis willing to lose their loved ones, whom they love just as much as we love ours.

Again, why the hell do Americans think "democracy" is this Holy Grail be-all and end-all??? Arrogance. If America has it (and I don't think we any longer do) then it must be The Greatest Thing that everyone wants to have.

How about we ask the IRAQIS if they think it's worth the deaths of tens of thousands of their children for a "democracy". Oh wait, they've already been asked, several times. And the vast majority say NO, they don't want a democracy.

I've lost a lot of friends in Iraq, and I still have a family member Iraqmired now. NOT ONE OF THEM was worth losing for ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT ANYWHERE, and most ESPECIALLY NOT for a form of government the Iraqis don't even want, and never asked us to help them get.

[Guaranteed]

67. For the RECORD, OUR VERY COUNTRY was built

upon the backs of THOUSANDS who died to make it what it is today. Yes, there ARE some things worth fighting for.

You're not understanding what I'm saying in the slightest. You're not even reading what I'm saying.

I am and was totally against this war. It was wrong, through and through. The argument will remain, though, that if things by some miracle turn out well in Iraq, even with those who died, it will be in the long run a good thing for them.

By the way this statement of yours:

"How about we ask the IRAQIS if they think it's worth the deaths of tens of thousands of their children for a "democracy". Oh wait, they've already been asked, several times. And the vast majority say NO, they don't want a democracy."

is hilarious.

[LynnTheDem]

69. And DO THE IRAQIS agree???

NO THEY DON'T.

That our country was built on the backs of MILLIONS, DOES NOT MEAN everyone in every nation in the world wants the same government WE have.

The Iraqis have made it VERY PLAIN that they DO NOT WANT a democracy so WHO THE HELL ARE WE to be KILLING tens of thousands of Iraqis under the PRETENSE of "spreading democracy". Even if it weren't a pretense, WHO THE HELL ARE WE to be forcing...FORCING!...ANY form of government on others???!!

YOU say it will be "a good thing" for them. Who the HELL ARE YOU to decide what's a GOOD THING for other nations and other nations' people?!

WHY must they believe the same as YOU believe???

YOU'RE the one not getting it; the Iraqis DO NOT WANT A DEMOCRACY. Have you just never bothered to READ the POLLS done in Iraq? Or you have but just blow off Iraqi opinion? After all, what could they possible know, we know what's best for them, right?

Your ARROGANCE is purely American; of course all peoples must desire democracy!

Maybe the Iraqis are just being HILARIOUS when they answer polls saying they DO NOT WANT a democratic government for Iraq.

[Guaranteed]

70. Like talking to a freaking brick wall.

Keep saying "Don't give the Iraqis democracy, give them what the majority of them want."

No, seriously, keep saying it. It's fucking hilarious.

[LynnTheDem]

74. And if the majority of Iraqis want another dictator?

Then yes, DEMOCRACY says that's exactly what the Iraqis should have, another dictator.

But that WOULD NOT RESULT IN A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT for Iraq.

The majority of Germans LOVED HITLER for years...but they WERE NOT living in a DEMOCRACY under Hitler.

I'mtrying to say that WHATEVER form of government the Iraqis want is the form they should have.

They should have the DEMOCRACY (at least the once) TO CHOOSE what form their actual government will take whether it's FASCIST, COMMUNIST, DEMOCRACY, ISLAMIST, whatever.

If they chose fascist, communist, Islamist, or dictatorship, they would then LOSE any democracy to choose otherwise in future.

And THAT is THEIR RIGHT, and it's NOT our right to be trying to enforce a permanent psuedo-democracy onto Iraq.

[Guaranteed]

78. Interesting...so what happens

if they vote in a dictatorship, but then a majority of them decide twenty years later that they don't want a dictatorship anymore?

I'm not sure that a one shot deal is the best way to go, if you believe that a government is supposed to represent its people and look out for their needs and wants.

The people have to vote if they're going to be represented, no matter who they vote in (which I believe is the real issue here- it's who they choose to represent them, not the "form" of government. Look at the U.S.- we're a democracy with a BEAUTIFUL dictatorship stuck in the middle of it right now). Once the people stop validating the government through their votes, the government no longer represents them.

That's the beauty of democracies- they're only limited by the wants of the people. The government can be whatever the people vote in.

[LynnTheDem]

83. We're meeting here...

You said;

"I'm not sure that a one shot deal is the best way to go if you believe that a government is supposed to represent its people and look out for their needs and wants."

Neither am I sure about a one shot deal, and I sure as hell wouldn't want a one shot deal myself for my country. But it's NOT MY RIGHT to decide for the Iraqis. THEIR beliefs are what's important, not yours and not mine.

Anyways, ALL I have been trying to say is the Iraqis may VOTE for OTHER than a democratic form of government, and that, imo, is their RIGHT to do so.

If they do vote for a fascist state or a dictatorship or communism, etc, then it is NOT a democracy by definition.

A democracy is a specific defined form of government, just like fascism and communism are.

I myself would want a democracy were I living in Iraq or anywhere else. But the majority of Iraqis may NOT want that, and in fact say they do not want our style of democracy, and who the hell are we to try and force it on them???

WE think our form of democracy is the best form of government; a whole lot of the world disagrees. Just like we think beheading is "barbaric", yet we electrocute people, no problem.

We're the ONLY "modern" nation that still has the death penalty, and the other 1st world nations think us barbaric for it.

Our way isn't always what others want. Let the Iraqis choose whatever they want, and if it's a dictatorship with no ability to in future vote the dictatorship out, fine.

[Guaranteed]

84. If you believe that a government gets its power from the will of the

people, then you must also believe that the people have to keep voting.

It's purely a matter of whether or not the government is going to represent the Iraqi people.

[The Wielding Truth]

93. What we have done under w junior is ridiculously stupid.

We walked into a snake pit with no knowledge of snakes. Lord help us if he returns to office. Yes. Let the Iraqis determine their own way of government

[BlueStateGirl]

47. He didn't screw up, He didn't get to finsh his comment. He was attempting

to make his larger point but the audience applause drown him out and then Dave moved on.
To paraphrase he said " Bush may be considered right, but Iraq is not stable and it is becoming more apparent everyday " and then he couldn't finish. I think he was going to say it's becoming more apparent everyday that it is not the case, and can Bush really get us there, and at what cost.

[madfloridian]

42. I think he said Bush would be considered to be right....how far into it?

I taped it and I will check. He says that often, and he means in the future...not approving of it himself.

Was it near the end?

[Guaranteed]

44. It was about halfway through the second segment, I believe.

If we could get some kind of transcript, that would be great. :)

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

62. ME.

Funny thing, but I want for the Iraqis WHAT THE IRAQIS WANT.

A democracy is but ONE FORM OF GOVERNMENT and it's very nature means you CANNOT FORCE IT onto a nation.

WHY can't Americans STOP with the bloody ARROGANCE of thinking the US form of government is THE HOLY GRAIL that all nations MUST have???!! That the Iraqi people MUST WANT such a Great Thing???

If you truly believe in democracy, then you MUST want the Iraqis to have WHAT THEY WANT TO HAVE. And the vast majority say they do not want a democracy and they most certainly NEVER asked us to give them one.

[madfloridian]

64. Give them the power to rebuild their own country for themselves.

Afraid it won't happen though. Dean is on a tough spot,so he did pretty well.

[Guaranteed]

68. WHAT THE IRAQIS WANT IS WHAT DEMOCRACY IS ALL ABOUT.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

God DAMN. If we DON'T give the Iraqis what they WANT, IT'S NOT A FUCKING DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!

[w4rma]

71. Actually, I think a good number of them *do* want a democracy.

Probably even a majority of them. But, the neo-con plan isn't for a democracy in Iraq. A democracy in Iraq would look alot like Iran and might even be absorbed into Iran or at least work extremely close with Iran. And considering that Iran is like the Islamic version of what Republicans what for the U.S., it's a result that they will not allow to happen even if they have to keep Iraq destablized for decades, imho.

[Guaranteed]

72. Nah, let's not give them a democracy.

Let's let them vote, instead, and we'll go with whatever a majority of them say.


GAACCK..............

[LynnTheDem]

79. You can't GIVE anyone a democracy.

We let them vote.

That's a democratic thing to do.

That DOES NOT MEAN they will vote for a DEMOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

If the Iraqis democratically vote in a DICTATORSHIP, then their form of government will be a DICTATORSHIP...NOT A DEMOCRACY.

But bushCartel and many Americans say ONLY A DEMOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT will do for Iraq. Whether the Iraqis want one or vote for one or NOT.

What if the majority voted for Saddam back? Would the USA allow it? HELL NO. How very UNDEMOCRATIC of the USA.

I'm differentiating between an ACT of democracy, and a DEMOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

They DO NOT mean the same thing.

[incapsulated]

80. Actually, you're a bit behind the times, there...

From what I've read, the Bushites realize that ANY stable government is better than nothing, and don't really care if it's a psuedo-Democracy/theocracy, as long as they're "friendly"! For those that want an actual representative Democracy, and they do exist, lol, are just going to have to eat it.

They never cared anyways. Our favorite "Third World" countries are mostly totalitarian states, very "stable". Making the World Safe for Capitalism.

[Guaranteed]

82. Right. When Bush says "democracy," it means something totally

different than when WE say "democracy."

[LynnTheDem]

86. Now that

I agree with you 110%, lol!

[Guaranteed]

81. Yes, voting in a dictatorship, I see.

Brilliant. You can call it "one-shot democracy."

Let's just hope the next generation of Iraqis doesn't get any ideas about having themselves represented by their government.

[LynnTheDem]

85. Call it whatever you like; as long as the IRAQIS decide, imo.

The VOTING IN of whatever form of government the Iraqis want would be an ACT OF DEMOCRACY.

If they vote in a dictatorship, their form of government WOULD NOT BE A DEMOCRACY. It would be a dictatorship.

*I'M* not calling it ANYthing! All I'm TRYING to say is that imo it is UP TO THE IRAQIS whether they want Saddam Hussein back, or another dictator just like him, or a Jimmy Carter style democratic representative presidency or an Iranian style Islamist state, or WHATEVER.

Let's hope the future generation of rightwingnuts don't take over America and decide a nice Stalin or Franco style Amerika would be best.

Either way, be it ours or the Iraqis' future generations, they should be allowed to sort it out at the time for and by themselves.

Like we were allowed to do.

[Guaranteed]

87. The founders of our country started their

journey with the bedrock principle that government retains its power solely from the will of the people. Voting at regular intervals follows directly from that idea. Throw that out and the government no longer represents the people.

The Iraqi people MUST be allowed to vote in whoever they want to as their leader, but they must also keep voting, or their government is not legitimate.

[LynnTheDem]

88. And I disagree totally.

They need to choose for themselves, and if they CHOOSE to NOT keep voting then that is THEIR RIGHT.

WE cannot force OUR beliefs from a totally different country, different history, different culture, different beliefs, different peoples, different background, onto Iraq.

*YOU & I* believe people must keep voting; that DOES NOT MEAN our belief is the only way or even the right way. It's only OUR way and OUR belief.

If the Iraqi people say they DO NOT WANT to keep voting, then that is totally legitimate and totally a decision up to the Iraqis, not us.

NO ONE (as in otehr nations) tell us "WE MUST" do anything; and NO ONE should be telling the Iraqis THEY MUST do anything.

[Guaranteed]

90. A government does not retain legitimacy twenty years after

it was voted in if it has not been validated. People who voted for it have died or moved away, and new people have been born, come to voting age, and moved INTO the country. Again, a government does not truly represent its people unless they keep voting.

If you don't think a government has to "represent" its people, then I see no problem with what you're saying.

Further, as to your point about the Iraqis "voting away" their voting rights (if that's even possible- doesn't make sense, in my mind), what about those who are in the minority who DON'T want to have their voting rights taken away? Doesn't the right to vote seem to you to be a right so dear that the majority should not be able to take it from the minority?

Isn't it an inalienable right, part of liberty?

[LynnTheDem]

92. it's not up tio what I believe or think

It's what the IRAQIS believe or think that is all that matters in Iraq.

If the minority didn't want a dictatorship (which means no votes) then they can fight it, they can move away, or they can accept it.

What about the minority in the USA who are vehemently against the death penalty?

NO voting is NOT an inalienable right. The ONLY inalienable right is what people of each nation DECIDE is an inalienable right.

For US in America (most of us) it's an inalienable right...but WE are not the Iraqis.

[LynnTheDem]

77. That's not true.

Read the polls, and read the actual internals. Iraqis say they want a "democracy" but LOOK WHAT THEY DEFINE a "democracy"; the vast majority want a "strong central government". They DO NOT want representatives from the various factions in government, but a STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.

Exactly what they had.

Except the Shia & Kurds want more religion in government and all the restrictions on women.

And THAT is what the majority of Iraqis define as a "democracy". What we would define as a dictatorship.

But then, I sure wouldn't define Turkey a "democracy", but bush does.

[JerseygirlCT]

100. I'd modify that by saying what all the Iraqis want -m

I'm concerned about women and religious minorities being stomped on by the majority -- whichever one gains the upper hand.

[madfloridian]

63. If it doesn't we are in worse trouble.

I do care that Bush be considered a liar by history. He has lied, and he has told half-truths, and even less than half true. He lied to the public in the SOTU speech, and that is unheard of.

[madfloridian]

61. Watched that portion again.....He did pretty well.

He made very clear that Iraq was no danger before, but it is a haven for Al Qaeda now. It is very unstable...we have created a new Afghanistan.

"If Iraq became stable Bush would be right(but his face belied the statement, trust me)....for the first time in four years. "
He actually said Bush would be right for the 1st time in 4 years...face said it all.

Paraphrase: Actions based on false assumption don't turn out well as a rule....then he repeated the litany of lies and cooked books. He really did light into Bush. He did. He emphasized how they covered up the real truth about the aluminum tubes, lied about the connection to Al Qaeda, etc.

Watching the 2nd time, I see he was really not at all approving that Bush ever be considered right.

He kept saying if you send troops you tell them the truth. Mentioned the over 1000 dead now, and they deserved truth.

The 2nd watch I see he was pretty powerful about the lies. The audience must have had a lot of repubs, as they cheered that one line so much.

Over all, he got a good reception, did pretty well under the intense grilling. Letterman likes him by his own admission when Mo Dowd was on....but Dean was really in a spot.

He has been in London, Dubai, and Rome, and several other cities, I think recently. He knows how despised we are. He is on the spot, as many Kerry staff do not want him as spokesman really. The Clinton folks on the staff disapprove of his civil unions bill.

In other words, if he had slipped and said too much, he would most definitely be blamed. Tough spot, good job.

[madfloridian]

66. Now I watched first half again... Dean held his own well.

Letterman was trying to get Dean to be critical of Kerry's war stance....Dean couldn't and didn't.

After watching it again, Dean did quite well under Letterman's constant attack.

Wow, what got into Letterman.

[liberalpress]

103. Nothing got into Letterman..

...it's not his job to be a cheerleader for one side or the other. It's his job to ask tough questions. It's the guests job to answer those questions. I feel both Dave and Howard were excellent at their jobs last night.

[golferdude]

91. Dean messed up Governor vs. Senator question

He said the last governor made a mess. He also said that Senators make better candidates. The last governor to be elected before Bush was Clinton. Reagan ended up being popular. If Senators make better candidates, then why did Dean run for the President? Letterman made Dean look like a fool tonight.

[Cha]

98. NO he didn't...Dean held his own.

Dean is no fool..it was a stupid line of questioning..it's really the person not what fucking postion they come from.

[madfloridian]

108. Yes, Bush, the last governor, did make a mess.

That is what he said, correctly so.

[bklyncowgirl]

95. Audience GOP plants?

Some people have mentioned that the audience seemed at least partly hostile to Dean and there was loud applause when he indicated that Bush would be considered right to do what he did in Iraq if it became a stable democracy (fat chance)

I wonder if the GOP may have stacked the audience.

I have no idea how you get tickets for these shows. I'm under the impression that you just show up. Of course I've never tried to get into one. (way past my bedtime)

[Cha]

99. I thought the audience was giving warm

applause when Dean would make points against bush..so there were at least as many Dems in the crowd.

[spanone]

104. I disagree, we still cannot invade a fucking sovereign country

just because we don't like their leader. Total Bullshit. If the US pursues that policy we will have terrorism ad infinitum.

[lil-petunia]

105. sure we can

For one thing, they are planning to attack us in 45 minutes.
They have these HUGE stockpiles of WMD. "Cause Rummy & Cheney sold 'em.
They have nukes and a growing nuke program. They are baking these yellow cakes with them.
They kill their own citizens and eat their own babies. With Cheese Kurds or Cheese whiz or sumptin.
They almost shot my daddy. It's hard.
They are tied at the hip with Ali Ka-yaba-daba, them non-Saudi terrra-ists that never came from Saudistan and have nothing to do with the Saudis and anyway, the Saudis promised me that they would never come back home.
They planned 9/11. It was hard work.
They attacked our innocent prison guards at el grabbo and committed suicide in front of Red Cross communistical infiltrators.
They promised us hugs and roses, not thorns and explosions.
They lied to the UN about WMDs, then they lied when they said they weren't lying. Then they lied when they said they weren't lying about lying in the lying documents they gave the UN. So that's three times that they lied. maybe four. Or five. It's hard work keeping count.
Saddam hates us for our freedom. And we want to spread freedumb throughout the west. And east. Saddam hates us and it is hard work.
Did I say it was hard?

[Clinton Crusader]

107. THAT worried me..

audience reacted to with applause, was saying that if Iraq becomes a stable democracy, then Bush would have been right to do what he did

Since this is in NEW YORK, but then I got to thinking most of these people are tourists, God knows where they're from. But there was equal applause re: Kerry winning.
:kick:

[golferdude]

109. They were cheering for Letterman

Not too many Dean fans in the audience. Letterman came out looking like a winner, and Dean made himself into a caricature yet again.