|More Howard Dean Fun - Part ll||moneyman|
Dec 19, 2003 8:53 AM
|Howard is well known for his opposition to the war in Iraq. Part of his disfavor has to do with his judgment that the US has snubbed its nose at the "International community" in following its foreign policies. He has said we were wrong because, for one reason, we couldn't get our allies to go along with us. Bush did what he thought was right, but because of the supposed lack of support, he should not have done it.
Then yesterday, Dean said the following: "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."
Which is it, Howard? Why is it alright for you to hold that position, but not for the President?
Dec 19, 2003 10:41 AM
|Dean believes Bush was wrong on the war for many, many reasons. International opposition was only one. Dean thinks he should not have done it for multiple good reasons. You've skimmed a little fat off the argument and called it mayonnaise.
The only way your parallel works is if he'd said "The question is what I think is right, despite all available evidence that it's wrong, and despite some pretty flimsy made up pretexts for it, not what is popular."
At that point, Dean's a raging hypocrite, I agree.
|hold the mayo||gtx|
Dec 19, 2003 12:03 PM
|Who cares what Dean says, anyway? This is Bush's moment. We should let him enjoy it without annoying political discourse. Meanwhile, Albright now has me convinced that they have Bin Laden bound and gagged in Cheney's bunker/basement.|
|hold his tongue||bill105|
Dec 19, 2003 12:25 PM
|apparently, the liberal washington "com"post cares what he says and they dont like it. while he isnt as tall as slick willie, he makes up for it by telling as many lies.
|what did Dean say *before* the war?||DougSloan|
Dec 19, 2003 1:49 PM
|Can anyone document what he said before the war? It's so easy to criticize after the fact, particularly in a campaign against the guy and others who authorized it.
|On record as opposed to the war||OldEdScott|
Dec 19, 2003 2:11 PM
|way yonder before it happened.|
|Gee, if you guys are up for this kind of fun. . .||czardonic|
Dec 19, 2003 1:55 PM
|. . .go back and compare the platform that Bush campaigned on to the policies that he has actually pursued. Trust me. You won't regret it.|
|gee, did anything change since then? nm||DougSloan|
Dec 19, 2003 2:01 PM
|gosh, not in Iraq. nm||OldEdScott|
Dec 19, 2003 2:12 PM
|can't look at Iraq in isolation nm||DougSloan|
Dec 19, 2003 2:14 PM
|What can you look at "in isolation"? (nm)||czardonic|
Dec 19, 2003 2:24 PM
|You? [ just kidding! ;-) ] nm||DougSloan|
Dec 19, 2003 2:28 PM
|But no serious answer? (nm)||czardonic|
Dec 19, 2003 2:44 PM
|It was a serious question?||DougSloan|
Dec 19, 2003 2:47 PM
|My point is that even if not much changed internally in Iraq since the election, its involvement, perceived at least, in international terrorism changed dramatically after 9/11. This certainly added to reasons to force Saddam to allow unfettered inspections or be invaded.
|Yes. So, does that logic apply only to Bush. . .||czardonic|
Dec 19, 2003 3:03 PM
|. . .or are others allowed to change their stance based on evolving events and perceptions?|
Dec 19, 2003 3:08 PM
|Yes, any time there is an international act of terrorism that kills thousands of people and contributes to wrecking an already sliding economy, people should consider setting aside previously made commitments to do what is needed at the time.
|Are you suggesting. . .||czardonic|
Dec 19, 2003 3:18 PM
|. . .that only such exceptional circumstances can legitimize a shift in policy or rhetoric?
Or are you simply proving that there is simply no argument in which 9/11 can't be employed to Bush's advantage.
|what I am saying is||DougSloan|
Dec 19, 2003 3:25 PM
|...that |only such exceptional circumstances [certainly] can legitimize a shift in policy or rhetoric
As to, "Or are you simply proving that there is simply no argument in which 9/11 can't be employed to Bush's advantage." ... 9/11 was such a huge turn of events, it may well allow, if not *require*, drastic, controversial, measures to combat to see that it or something similar does not happen again. This will sound very harsh, but I think most would agree that if military action, with the resulting loss of lives, or domestic actions can prevent or deter another loss of thousands of American lives and billions in property damage, and damage to the economy, it is well worth it.
|Which is to say. . .||czardonic|
Dec 19, 2003 3:44 PM
|. . .nothing. Circumstances change and politicianc must change their stance accordingly. Rhetorical consistency is for ideologues and simpletons.
Extreme circumstances may indeed require drastic and unpopular measures, and 9/11 falls into that category of circumstance. But exigency requires more examination of ones actions, not less. (When you are forced to act fast, you better be able to think fast.) Whether Bush's policies are preventing the loss of American lives or inviting the loss of more is an open question.
|I agree mostly||DougSloan|
Dec 19, 2003 3:52 PM
|I agree with most of that, with a note that I think people should strive to be consistent, but just not have their hands arbitrarily tied by that goal.
Remember that there are dozens of smart people running the country and military, not just one, even if you don't think Bush is an intellectual giant.
Regardless of the ultimate outcome, I think most would agree that we need to do *something* post 9/11. He'd have been remiss in duty and heavily criticized had he sat on his hands and done nothing, especially if something else had happened. Also recall that just about all the Democrats were willing accomplices, too.
|<i>Something</i>, yes <i>Anything</i>, no.||czardonic|
Dec 19, 2003 4:09 PM
|I, for one, would have prefered an honest attempt to identify what failings on the part of our Government contributed to our vulnerability. I would also prefer that resources be concentrated on "hardening" our domestic security rather than stretching them in a global effort to subdue anyone who looks at America sideways. Bush has been very remiss in his duty to protect our ports, nuclear power and chemical plants, IMO.
Whether others in Bush's administration are any more honest or competent is also an open question. Remember that the Administration was at odds with many qualilfied (enough for Bush to tout when they agree with him) intelligence and military officials over his justification and execution of the war in Iraq (and that they were right in their analysis of the facts). I have no use for his Democrat enablers either.
|and wasn't he doing so?||rufus|
Dec 19, 2003 6:27 PM
|weren't inspections happening in iraq, and succeeding in their goal? that is until bush pulled them out cause he had decided to go to war one way or another.
funny how after he did that, in speeches he referred to "inspections not being allowed".
|Gee, if you guys are up for this kind of fun. . .||bill105|
Dec 19, 2003 2:06 PM
|no, your type holds out that dean is someone better than bush. the fact is the democrats cant produce anyone. it then comes down to the lesser of two evils in your opinion and i dont think bush is evil. i wouldnt have voted for him, twice, once here and once in florida if i thought he was. just kidding.
dean has a problem with lying, like al bore. bush didnt flat out lie and know it during the campaign or since.
|Is Dean better than Bush?||czardonic|
Dec 19, 2003 2:23 PM
|That is a matter of opinion, and besides the point anyway.
My point is that it is that these rhetorical consistency witch hunts are stupid. We are talking about politicians here. And even if we weren't, isn't any intelligent person likely to adjust their views according to context and unfolding events?
Bush lied many times during his campaign if you hold him up to the same standards of "honesty" as Gore. He made many claims about his record in Texas that were demonstrably false or designed to mislead. Deal with it. You just sound like a nitwit when you claim that Gore and Dean are big liars and Bush is an honest politician.
|Is Dean better than Bush?||bill105|
Dec 22, 2003 7:23 AM
|back to the question,
According to the Dwinnell Political Report, which kept tabs on Dean's record until he left office earlier this year, the Democratic presidential front-runner left his state with:
Skyrocketing electricity rates, exploding health insurance costs and nearly the highest workman's compensation rates in the nation.
A falling per capita income, with the state's nationwide ranking slipping from the mid-20s to the mid-30s on Dean's watch.
Net job losses in 2002 for the first time in a decade.
A former state legislator tells NewsMax that during Dean's last six years in office, Vermont lost nearly 20 percent of its manufacturing jobs.
Meanwhile, the Green Mountain state now has the sixth-highest welfare spending per capita in the nation.
Vermont also ranks sixth in per capita education spending, but has only average graduation rates and below-average SAT scores.
Said the ex-legislator, "They don't call Howard Dean 'The Gray Davis of the East' for nothing."
and on al-Qaeda/Iraq, even your buddy Slick knew there was huge evidence linking the two, except he didnt do anything about it.
|And that compares to Bush's Texas. . .||czardonic|
Dec 22, 2003 11:04 AM
|. . .how?|
|And that compares to Bush's Texas. . .||bill105|
Dec 22, 2003 11:56 AM
|it doesnt. this thread is about dean. start one on bush and texas if you want to argue about that.|
|Why bother responding if you are going to avoid the issue. . .||czardonic|
Dec 22, 2003 12:00 PM
|. . .so lamely.
I would say that about 85% of this thread is about Bush, as any thread about dishonest politicians will naturally become. Deal.
|because its funny watching you respond.. .||bill105|
Dec 22, 2003 12:18 PM
|and look at the subject. it was originally about dean and i feel a sense of loyalty to staying on point, as some seem not to.|
|W's lies would fill a book...||mdehner|
Dec 19, 2003 3:14 PM
|and in fact they have.
The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception, by David Corn
A pretty compelling read, in my totally objective opinion.
|I'm a big David Corn fan||gtx|
Dec 19, 2003 3:31 PM
|But the reviews made that book sound pretty boring.|| |