When is this guy going to learn? When will the democratic party realize that he is bad for them?
The other day he said that the idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong.
Now today hes decided that is not what he meant and instead was trying to say a new U.S. startegy is needed there.


Imagine if this guy would have been elected president?


DS

Maybe he meant to say that the idea (of winning the war) is wrong because they can't win the war like they're doing now. Which would explain his desire for a new strategy.

Probably about the same time that the Republicans realize that they Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield gang is bad for them.

I think Enzo nailed it with his comment above.

I didn't read Dean's original statement, nor did I read his clarification, but let's give him some credit. I doubt very much if he changed his position 360° in one day.

He's a politician, no bettter nor worse than most others.
I did.

I don't know that he would have been any worse than the guy who was elected president.

If that is what he meant then why didn't he just say that? He made a complete turn around in 2 days because Hillary and Kerry was not too happy with what he said. The democrats in power feel that it was damaging to their party.


DS

I did.

I don't know that he would have been any worse than the guy who was elected president. [/b][/quote]This guy would have filed a lawsuit in world court against the terrorists and they would have attacked our country even more because Dean is a spineless rat in bed with france and germany.

Thank god we had Bush in office.


DS

There.

Enough said :rolleyes:

For being against them, it seems you actually give a shit about the democrats. You couldn't possibly want that reputation.

At least Dean has balls. That's what the party needs, more people with guts.

I disagree.

I agree. The Dems have been nothing but wussies and "watered down Repubs".

Oh, right, because we're doing so fucking successful as a nation under our current administration. :rolleyes:

At least that wouldn't be lying about non-existing WMD, used as an argument to invade a country that didn't have to be invaded.
I fail to see the link.
Very arguable.

I tought seeking allies was a good thing. I know Bush tried to do that.

How come you on the left are not happy about the fact that we liberated millions of people? You all cant have it both ways now. When countries like Somalia need help you all yell and scream that the USA should get involved and help these people right, but what about the Millions of people in Iraq who were living in fear.

DS

What about the millions of AMERICANS from New Orleans who still have no power, no running water, and no home? Are Iraqis with oil fields or people from New Orleans more important to you?

1. Because in Africa, more people are dying in extreme unhuman circumstances . In Iraq, with all disrespect for the dictator that ruled the country, 3000 people weren't dying every hour. How much did he kill? Some 10000's in 20 years?
That's why I'm against the Iraq-war, there were more urgent problems.
2. Why specifically invading Iraq? Saoedi-Arabia is a bigger source for extremism, Iran is a bigger threat to the USA, and Israël is a bigger threat for world-peace. And Afghanistan wasn't finished yet, nor is it finished now. It's total chaos there, just like in Iraq. When one project is in chaos, then making a new chaos will distract the attention from the first chaos, but neither of them will be solved.
That's why I'm against the Iraq-war.

I must admit, although I can't say at this point I'd vote for Dean, he's growing on me. And yes, it's good to see a little spine in the Dems.

However, with all due respect, I suppose it depends on what one would consider "ruining". I will acknowledge that "crooks" can be in both parties but judging from all the hot water many of the Reps and their cohorts are in, I would hardly say they are a "credit" to their party. Sure glad "honor & dignity" prevail with the right. :rolleyes:

1. Former Rep, Randy "Duke" Cunningham admitted to accepting bribes

2. GOP lobbyist Abramoff - under investigation for allegedly defrauding Indian Casinos

3. Libby indicted for Perjury

5. Delay Indicated for money laundering (and resigned)

6. Frist- for stock market fraud

7. Rove still under investigation, and possibly could be charged with perjury or more. Wouldn't be surprised one bit that Cheney's involved in this mess as well.

TIS

That's what happens when you don't "give it to a jew congressman in another district."


They're ALL a bunch of Pezzanovantes anyway.


Don Cardi

Exactly, DC. The Dems got tossed out of congress in 94 largely because they had been in the majority too long and they were treating the country's coffers like their private piggy bank. Now the Reps have been in power in congress too long and if not in 06, by 08 they will lose their majority. Then the dems, coming in to claim "reform" will just do more of the same. As I have said many times, nothing changes except the swines at the trough.

I'd make a bet that "all" politicians are probably on a "people you least trust" list somewhere.

During my readings and browsings I hear that many would want a real third party, because of the lack of trust. The thing is, isn't a politician always a politician? :rolleyes: :p


TIS

Nah, there are honest politicians. But most of the time, they just have to listen to what the Party/big business say, so that their own opinion gets weaker and weaker.

But about that Third Party: What about Ralph Nader? I heard his Green Party fights for a cleaner environment, and that his ideas that are kinda socialist.
I think he is too "left" to be really an option for a third party, but he is interesting.

Don Tom,

That is so true. Good one