Dean: US Won't Win in Iraq

Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

"The White House wants us to have a permanent commitment to Iraq. This is an Iraqi problem. President Bush got rid of Saddam Hussein and that was a great thing, but that could have been dome in a very different way. But now that we're there we need to figure out how to leave. 80% of Iraqis want us to leave, and it's their country."

Dean also compared the controversy over pre-war intelligence to the Watergate scandal which brought down Richard Nixon's presidency in 1974.

"What we see today is very much like what was going in Watergate," Dean said. "It turns out there is a lot of good evidence that President Bush did not tell the truth when he was asking Congress for the power to go to war.

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=C36A87B9-63A0-4CDE-AA91-B41571AFD3AF

Dean: US Won't Win in Iraq

(SAN ANTONIO) -- Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

Dean made his comments in an interview on WOAI Radio in San Antonio.

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

<SNIP>

"The White House wants us to have a permanent commitment to Iraq. This is an Iraqi problem. President Bush got rid of Saddam Hussein and that was a great thing, but that could have been dome in a very different way. But now that we're there we need to figure out how to leave. 80% of Iraqis want us to leave, and it's their country."

<SNIP>

"What we see today is very much like what was going in Watergate," Dean said. "It turns out there is a lot of good evidence that President Bush did not tell the truth when he was asking Congress for the power to go to war. The President said last week that Congress saw the same intelligence that he did in making the decision to go to war, and that is flat out wrong. The President withheld some intelligence from the Senate Intelligence Committee. He withheld the report from the CIA that in fact there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (in Iraq), that they did not have a nuclear program. They (the White House) selectively gave intelligence to the United States Senate and the United States Congress and got them to give the go ahead to attack these people."

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=C36A87B9-63A0-4CDE-AA91-B41571AFD3AF

Kills me when some folks I know think his views were prophetic! He tells the TRUTH and they think its prophecy!

Of course, can't have people, especially politicians, talking truth now, can we!

Awaiting the cleaners now...

Dean is comfortable with US imperialism, he only wants to see it carried out more effectively. 'Welome in Afghanistant'?! Who is he kidding. Maybe a few blocks of Kabul where the puppet government is installed. Actually he probably knows this is false but keeps up the lie as a fig leaf (like on the war on terrorism itself) to cover US efforts to extend its influence in the region. The assumption in his statement that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong" is that if the US could win then that would justify the lies, the cost and the deaths. Launching an aggressive war is wrong on principle as it was in Vietnam. His failure, and the failure of many of the luminaries in the party to stand up for that principle, is why the democrats are so often seen as wafflers and windtesters.

:toast:

on edit-- I think Dean is one of the best hopes the democratic party has at present-- it's too bad he can't run for office in '08-- but I also think you're correct that the underlying paradigm in operation here-- the domestic justifications for a corrupt foreign policy-- are fundamentally a pack of lies. It's disappointing to see even people like Dean giving tacit acknowledgement to those lies.

Many (if not all) Dems, are discusing about how the admin has not sent in enought troops, or how they were not enough life vests,, or not enough armored humvees, rather than discuss the fact that WE SHOULD NOT BE THERE PERIOD. THAT THIS WAR IS A RACIST IMPERIALIST SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!

But we can argue about whether or not we should be there until we are blue in the face. The fact is, we are there. So if there were something there worthwhile to "win", and if we could win it, it would be idiotic to ignore it. But the reality is, we probably can't win, no matter what it is we are trying to win.

it wasn't before (for some reason).

I thought it was WMDs. then it was Sudam. What the heck is it now? what are we fighting for?

Seems like an on-going war is what *'s goal is. he should send the twins.

Oh yeah, that'll win him popularity contests.

Something you have to understand about conservatives is, they are firmly committed to their ideals. They have to be; they're not capable of changing their minds to accomodate new information, like we are. The conservative mind is basically locked into one particular pattern of thought, and they are bound to resist anything that might challenge it.

Hence, it's okay to say the politicians are jerking us around; just about anybody can accept that idea. But to tell a conservative that their beloved country has turned itself into a villain, is a direct contradiction to ideas that they are incapable of letting go of, or even questioning. They must confront anyone who exposes them to such a threat, and because they have conservative minds, there are only so many ways they know how to do that.

Ergo, if Howard Dean claims, or even strongly implies, that the Yoo-nighted States of 'Murika is guilty of invading a nonthreatening neighbour and murdering thousands of innocent people, regardless of whether it's true, not only will a large portion of the US's population feel alienated and offended by his remarks, but many of them will take it as a personal attack, and respond in kind.

QED.

Afghanistan was a necessary and fully justified invasion, as the Taliban refused to hand over Osama. We would have bene much better off if we had kept the focus there, rather than divert needlessly to Iraq.

He said that about the Iraq debacle.

I want to find the transcript. I heard he said it during some TV interview. It's out there somewhere. And we need to find it and put it up there EVERY time some wingnut bitches about what Dean just said.

I never go over there because I consider it a cesspool of ignorant belligerence, but I did today - what an example of cognitive dissonance! Besides calling Dean a traitor (yeah, right - is that all they got left anymore?), they say over and over

WE HAVE WON IN IRAQ


They are f'ing insane.

...But, hey, Bush can't talk about that. DIA's Pat Lang has discussed it however. Called Iranian espionage 'good work' even. Lang also speaks about Iranian intelligence's duping of the Bush neocon "Vulcans" in a Guardian article:


""According to US intelligence sources, the FBI has opened an investigation into the leak of secret information to the INC from within the administration. A Pentagon official said yesterday he was not aware of any investigation. Patrick Lang, former head of the Middle East desk at the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), said the agency was re-examining prewar intelligence provided by the INC in the light of the CIA's findings of a link with Iranian intelligence.

"The people investigating this aren't sure yet, but the investigation is under way, and the DIA are looking through its documents and realising they've been had," Mr Lang said. "If it turns out to be true, it was certainly a genius operation. created an anti-Saddam opposition to get rid of him, and they got us to pay for it."

A Pentagon official confirmed that a "reassessment process" was under way, but refused to give details.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1224916,00.html

So, when will the administration be charged with treason ? Only when a Democratically controlled House can bring the charges... In '06 then, and this issue alone can win the 17 or so seats necessary. But, alas, Democrats and progressives, we on DU bear the responsibility of pointing this out to Reps Reid and Pelosi.

Do they read DU ? We'll find out, huh ? And the Fitzgeral 'CIA leak' investigation doesn't hold a candle to this...but we don't know if the DOJ has quietly swept this under the carpet...or do we ????

can we go home now? or do we have to kill more humans? We won when we eliminated the thret of WMD's, and we won again when we got Sudam. What's left? what is our goal now? what defines Victory?

"traitor" "traitor" "why do they hate 'murica" "traitor" "traitor"


AGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

if not for the Democrats?

How many Americans need to die before you agree it's too many?

5000?
10000?
25000?
50000?
100000?
500000?
1000000?

It would be so enlightening to see how many lives they would comfortably waste before they lose their stomach for this elective and immoral action against Iraq.

Relatives.

people have wised up and know that Dean is right.

"Our troops need to hear not only are they supported, but that we have got a strategy that will win."

What freeperland won't admit or is just too dumb to notice is the Prez has yet to even lay down what the objective is to this war.

Day bombing started Ari Fleischer (sp?) said "The campaign to rid Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction has begun". Well that didn't work out so well did it. Bush and co just keep bringing up new reasons we are there and new victory's. People don't even know what victory is and Bush doesn't either.

The U.S. is there too stay, not to win. Dem's need to make this clear that freeperland is all about just making dumb excuses to stay there, and not to WIN. If they answer with they are for winning simply ask them to define the objectives and what a victory is.

They do not seem to have a clue about truth and honor...

The DOCTOR is in, speaking truth again. Refreshing!

Heads are exploding in Freeperville.

again, his statements show how our party and Dems just do not get how to win over more voters when it comes to national security.

I agree wholeheartedly with the concept of his points, but he just can't say the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

This statement is going to be used to slap us all over the place. The Rethugs are going to reduce his entire speech to Dean saying we are losers and can't beat the Iraqis.

I'm sure people aren't going to like my points, but Dean's words are going to be used in a way to say that Dems are not supporting the troops (again).

He could have made his point better - for example, by stating that the way this war is being carried out by the Bushies ensures that we will have much harder time "winning" in Iraq. That they have ran this entire operation in the most incompetent way possible.

I just don't understand what is so hard when it comes to crafting good messages that will not be used to come back to haunt us.

how is it the other side constantly gets away with saying the most outrageous/false/racist/obnoxious statements? How is it that they can make US pay, but we can't seem to make them pay?

It astounds me.

Instead of squabbling that we are afraid of how the truth was stated we'd be better off.

Do you care about kids losing their futures and Iraqis being murdered for no reason other than for the power abusers to steal their oil and pillage more, or is it simply the wording that bothers you?

Let me help you then.

We have already "beat Iraq".

In fact, we have beaten that country to a pulp for years now, through wrong sighted sanctions and the cruelest of "shock and awe" bombs, napalm and white phosphorus.

It was no contest. They were totally defenseless against us, as they are now.

Iraq doesnt belong to us. It never did belong to us, and even if we stay there, it will never belong to us.

You and/or I do not own Iraq.

Its their oil, not yours or mine.

I know that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or Joe Lieberman love to talk generalized safe banter, but they wouldn't drive a tank or carry an M-16 if you paid them Dick Cheney's Halliburton salary.

But they delegate that others to do the dirty work because the smell of death and Iraq is so far from their nostrils.

Why cant Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Joe Lieberman and even John Kerry walk the walk?

Why do they avoid the issue of War and the deaths that they continue to allow and God forbid, even in cases, condone.

Such behavior is the behavior of those whose priorities are very displaced, such is the behavior of cowards and opportunists.

What else does one call their resistance to stopping unnecessary death and murder and tragedy, and doing what is necessary and what is right?

They have done nothing, N-O-T-H-I-N-G to stop this invasion and murder of innocent, good people. If they have, please show me when and where.

I would love to know because I want to believe that they actually care more than the position they hold in Washington.

As such, after talking with scores of military parents, personnel, these individuals Clinton, Kerry, Biden and Lieberman STILL seem to have limited if any capacity for empathy or enough concern to actually prevent more death.

If these individuals did, they would not be tolerating or accepting this illegal murderous assault on and in Iraq any further.

They would be doing what leaders like Dean and Murtha are doing:

They would be listening to Americans who have lost children, lost husbands and wives, and family members.

But time after time after time, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman don't listen.

They have not listened to those who know the MOST about this issue. Those who are living it.

It would appear that these individuals care more about their own ascension to power than they do the lives of Iraqis and the lives of thousands of our American troops.

Thats it. There is no other way to look at it.

So hardworkingdem, if you feel so compelled to fight this war and "beat Iraqis", as you put it, no one is stopping you.

By all means, please go and enlist. No doubt they are recruiting right now.

I'm not looking for "talking points" or to gloss over this war at all.

And before you start throwing diatribes around, you should ask for clarifications on points. I spent my time in the military and was in the Gulf the first time around.

My point is that our party keeps making comments in ways that end up coming to haunt us (voting for the 87 billion before voting against it and so on). Howard Dean could have made his comments in such a way that would have been more effective than mentioning that our soldiers can't win.

We Dems simply keep overlooking the visceral aspect of communication. What does it say when one of our Democratic leaders says our military "can't win"? It screams volumes. It alludes to we are willing to give up when things get rough and all sorts of other things.

Now, what Dean could have said and what EVERY Dem should be yelling now is that the Bush Administration failed from the very start because of their incompetence.

Lastly, the Dems must regain power before any change will happen. It is as simple as that and if we want to regain Congress then we have to be smarter about it.

And yes, I do care about the innocent Iraqi people, but before we can do them a damn bit of good, the Dems have to be in position to do so.

So watch, over the next few days Dean's comments will come back and be used against the Dems.

Liberating and promoting democratic governments doesn't result from oppression and domination and bombs, it comes from promoting incentive, inspiring motivation and pride within ones own community.

If we had gone, *with permission from Iraqis* and with help and aid from other countries, more importantly not with bombs and tanks and guns and our own young kids who have been thrown into a culture and world that is unknown and now very frightening to them, we could have and still COULD do so much to right the wrongs that have been inflicted.

Creating wars in order to dominate and suppress only profit those like Dick Cheney, but creating self-confidence and goodwill can move mountains. If our soldiers had arrived with food, clean water, skilled helpers in the medical field, and irrigation and sewage system workers, we would be in a totally different position right now, wouldnt we?

We would be seen as the country we have always envisioned ourselves to be. That would have instilled pride in our good choices and appreciation from the Iraqis who, are desparate to have their country back to a working level. These type of actions would build their pride and esteem, and we will not only have created an ally and friend, I believe we would help to relieve so much of the tension in the Middle East.

THAT is the question. Do those in the White House and those who profit from war and destruction truly want peace? It certainly does not look that way.

If we TRULY wanted to help the Iraqis rebuild from the decades of damage that we have inflicted through our sanctions and bombs, we would help them become independent again, or better yet, interdependent, as we all essentially are. We would help them to rebuild their communities in ways THEY would like their communities to look, we would provide medicine and treatments for those who are in physical and mental pain, we would provide what is needed for the thousands if not millions of children who are suffering from disease, cancer, malnutrition. We would help them to return as best we can to the world they want and deserve.

In addition, we have to continue to promote ways to build our economic structure NOT on war and destruction, but on peace and environmental sustainment, consciousness and stability. We have to make war obsolete. War actually is obsolete, except we have those in power that are unable to grasp the consequences of what they are doing.

We can do that. We must do that. The entire planet must move away from the war mentality and economy because we have 'peaked' in that area to where we now have the capacity to destroy everything. ANd there is no where to go. No more frontier to "conquer". There is no way to fight a war with nuclear weaponry without virtually destroying the planet. When we have leaders and enough citizens world wide to understand that, we will have a chance to change the deadly direction we are moving.

You are completely correct and I agree completely with you, but you are taking this thread to completely different level and direction.

My point was Dean, while telling the truth, has probably hurt the debate by speaking so frankly and by choosing bad words, when he could have really hammered the Bushies if he had only stayed away from lighten rod like words of "quit".

You speak the truth and it is already being flogged to death in exactly the way you predicted.

supports Code Pink. Go Dean. Its great to have politicians that will always say what they believe.

Give em hell Howie!!!

We love Ya!!!

:dem: :dem: :dem:

That is funny.

Did they find it at FR, too. I bet that did blow their minds.

Bush will proclaim victory. We will "win" in Iraq even if there is a civil war, increase in terrorism, or another 9/11 happens. I really hope Dean is aware of this and is ready to counter the inevitable WH spin.

Do any of you think Bush and Co will do anything less than this?

Is that getting rid of Hussien didn't turn out to be such a great thing after all. Seems to me it's gone from bad to worse on just about every measureable scale.

(of course, I know you can't say that).

Your superiors have fucked this war up so much that it is nonrecoverable at this point.

Its time for our boys and girls to come home.

We went into Iraq on false pretenses ... we captured Iraq's president
and are now trying him ... on false pretenses. The Bush cartel has no right to win ANYTHING in Iraq. If the Bushes "lose" in Iraq ... and they should ... it is not us ... the citizens of America that lose ... just that evil cartel presently in power

And that ... in my opinion is what it is ALL about

I wish he would have said this two years ago when on the campaign trail. If I recall he was saying then that even though it was a mistake to go into Iraq, there was a need to stay the course.

He said one of the worst things we had done in Iraq was to help Iran win its goal in the Iran/Iraq wars. In other words, he is saying Iraq is becoming what it wasn't...a theocracy.

They are a danger to the whole of the middle east and Europe. I think he is right to advise caution.

Stated that Moqtada al Sadr is backed by Hezbollah/Iran and after elections the shia WILL "teach the sunni's a lesson"...


GO DEAN!

:nopity:

:cry:

idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong

Of course the neocons will spin this statement and call Dean a defeatist/pessimist. :eyes: But, he's always right on the money.

Yes, someone needed to say it! We suck and we can't possibly win! He's moved right past the "what can we fix about this fu*ked up war" stage and straight on to the "how do we manage this defeat" stage.

:banghead:

I want something in-between, like a plan for getting out and how he would do better.

I don't see how this will play, other than spun like a shiny new top by the repugs and hannity blowhards.

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

The Red Cross said 70% to 90% of the Iraqi prisoners in U.S. custody are INNOCENT....

http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/dailystar/21552.php

The U.S. military admits that the evidence against prisoners is justified in only one in four cases.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11468

But the military is torturing these Iraqis everyday....

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/03/28/2003248098

And the U.S. military is torturing Iraqis TO DEATH....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4355779.stm

One soldier's account: "Guys in my unit, particularly the younger guys, would drive by in their Humvee and shatter bottles over the heads of Iraqi civilians passing by. They'd keep a bunch of empty Coke bottles in the Humvee to break over people's heads."

"Mr. Delgado said he had witnessed incidents in which an Army sergeant lashed a group of children with a steel Humvee antenna, and a Marine corporal planted a vicious kick in the chest of a kid about 6 years old. There were many occasions, he said, when soldiers or marines would yell and curse and point their guns at Iraqis who had done nothing wrong."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/050205X.shtml

He said they should not be entering Iraqis homes. Think about it, in a country tramatized by Saddam, Our soldiers who by and large speak no arabic are entering homes looking for terrorist.

Would you find it it terrifying if people carrying guns from a country which appears to occupying yours entered your home? They would not be able to say what they were looking for. They sometimes took totally innocent people into custody.

KERRY WOULD HAVE BEEN A GREAT PRESIDENT, certainly better than your leader. With Kerry as President, I would imagine our troups would be gradually coming home and he would be putting huge effort into restoring our national image and getting us friends again. Why do you think an EU official concerned about the secret prision camps wanted the information to come from Kerry, who he trusted?

I love you Dean. I hate you Rahm. I love you Murtha. I hate you Hillary. I love you Barbara!


DEAN! DEAN! DEAN!

"The White House wants us to have a permanent commitment to Iraq. This is an Iraqi problem."

And will add Murtha's words.."The troops have done all that they have been asked to do."

Couldn't he have put it something like;

"Bush's plan for victory will fail just like everything else Bush has done."

The sound bite would be less of a good target for neocon blowhards;
"the Democrats want us to lose, and here's the proof '(Dean's quote -of of context...)' "

imagine if he was president...

:(

They are just frothing over this...looks like he hit a nerve....

Go Howard...:yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause:

He says outrageous things to get the media going again. This keeps the focus on what a failure this "war" is.

We could have encouraged the plan of Iraq's neighbors to have him go into exile.

Well said! (Though I wish that at least some Dems would start pointing out that exile could have been arranged.)

What Dean and all of us ought to be considering is that Bushco does have a plan to win, and that plan might involve genocide, starting with the Sunni population.

"Howard: I think Democrats are coming together. I had a long talk with a group of senators this weekend about this. You know, there's different points of view, but when Jack Mutha stood up, a 37 year Marine corps veteran, he really, I think, got the attention of the country. And the basis of some of his discussions were based on a paper by a guy named Lawrence Korb, who was oddly enough an official in the Reagan administration, who *has* a way out, and I think it makes a lot of sense--

Stephanie: --I do too--

Howard: --and the president is flying off someplace not paying attention. But this is a sensible plan, he calls it strategic redeployment. What he says is that we ought to take 20,000 of the troops and send them to Afghanistan, because we need more troops there, and that *is* a war that has something to do with national defense. Then we ought to bring home the 80,000 National Guardsmen and Reserves--they have no business being in a war like this. They shouldn't have been there in the first place. That we ought to take 14,000 troops and put them in a nearby friendly country. Because we are going to have a real problem--I mean this isn't going to go away when leave, all this chaos over there. And we are going to have to deal with Zarqawi, which was not a problem before--"

Link to the transcript by Renee, and the audio of the interview as well.

http://howardempowered.blogspot.com/2005/12/howard-dean-on-stephanie-miller-show.html

Dean's made a bold statement to start the debate rolling. Now it's time to cue the conservative Democrat to come out and attack him.

We could make it a game, name the Democrat and the TV Show.

I'll take Joe Biden on "The Situation".

in the Green Room, of ANY show!

Yep, might be Biden

criticized for their soft war positions. This is the real test. The silence of such people when Dean and Murtha are so on target is far worse in reality than the bad they attribute to
calling attention to the shortcomings of the Biden/Bayh/Lieberman/Hillary/Kerry bunch.

"The rest of us" have Kucinich/Murtha/Pelosi/Dean. I like that bunch much better.

We need more real debate, not less.

Dean was off to a great start with his call to unite the Dems around a proposal "to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately" ... and i couldn't agree more that the US will never win in Iraq ...

but if Dean's pushing for two more years of this war, count me out ... that doesn't sound like a party Chairman trying to reconcile the Murtha/Pelosi position to the "we can't just leave" plans from the Senate ...

two more years of war is an absurd proposal ...

and whatever happened to all that talk about the Party Chair not talking about policy issues?? ... i've constantly seen that theme being pushed to defend Dean for not speaking out against the war ... i never agreed he should leave policy to the Congress and i'm glad he's speaking out; i just don't like what he said ...

Just think of all the joy that could be had, economic collapse, pandemic virus outbreaks, more coastal devastation by global warming, etc. Looking ahead just seems like so much fun :P

I am a bit sceptic to the whole redeployment issues though. Which country would welcome US troops?

ahold of this. I heard screaming Mehlman quotes as I was driving the kids to school.

Give 'em HELL, Howard!

It's not always, er, COMFORTABLE backing the chairman, but it is EXCITING!

I can hear them cackling as we speak: "Tee hee! Don't try and teach your grandmother to suck eggs!"

Amazing how history repeats itself. Time to pack our bags and leave. PNAC had no clue because they did not study history.

and for that, I give him a lot of credit.

But, politicians don't win elections with negativity. Look at what happened to Kerry and look at how Hillary is steering towards a totally different direction.

criticism.

As long as the criticism is valid, it's fair game.

Are you Bob Shrum or a Republican?

quoted. I like him and support him with grassroots money, but this statement makes it look like all the Democrats are behind this point of view and that is not true. It seems to appear that he has jumped the gun on this.
This indicates to me that the democrats better get a decent cohesive message on the war and enforce everyone sticking with that point if view as much as possible.

NASHUA, N.H., Aug. 30 - President Bush, in an interview broadcast on Monday, said he did not think America could win the war on terror but that it could make terrorism less acceptable around the world, a departure from his previous optimistic statements that the United States would eventually prevail.

In the interview with Matt Lauer of the NBC News program "Today," conducted on Saturday but shown on the opening day of the Republican National Convention, Mr. Bush was asked if the United States could win the war against terrorism, which he has made the focus of his administration and the central thrust of his re-election campaign.

"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush replied. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/politics/campaign/31bush.html?ex=1251691200&en=b257721394890931&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

and went back to the orginal position of complete victory.

He did not jump the gun. In his interview I posted in GDP he said he has been working with a lot of senators on this.

Quit being afraid of hearing truth.

Do you know where I can find a transcript of this?!

Dean has this ability to make controversial statement without adding the necessary qualifiers.

To the Person Sitting in Darkness
By Mark Twain
(New York: Anti-Imperialist League of New York, 1901).

snip

It is a distress to look on and note the mismoves, they are so strange and so awkward. Mr. Chamberlain manufactures a war out of materials so inadequate and so fanciful that they make the boxes grieve and the gallery laugh, and he tries hard to persuade himself that it isn't purely a private raid for cash, but has a sort of dim, vague respectability about it somewhere, if he could only find the spot; and that, by and by, he can scour the flag clean again after he has finished dragging it through the mud, and make it shine and flash in the vault of heaven once more as it had shone and flashed there a thousand years in the world's respect until he laid his unfaithful hand upon it.

snip

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/sitting.html

shocking

That says it all.

"What we see today is very much like what was going in Watergate," Dean said. "It turns out there is a lot of good evidence that President Bush did not tell the truth when he was asking Congress for the power to go to war."

The US has botched this from the beginning, they will almost certainly not end up in control by the end, as was the aim.

Calling the shots. Now news programs are directly pitting Dean against Cheney and Bush.

I love this man.

--"victory," namely genocide, and decided that this country should not ever want to "win" anything that way. If we aren't going to do genocide, he is 100% right that we can't win. A year-long journey away from wishing Bush "tremendous success," and one I am very glad he has taken.

Gotta love the guy!