HomePoliticsMorning MemeMorning Meme Kevin December 14, 2003 Politics 13 CommentsLieberman on Dean:“Let’s be real clear… If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam would be in power not prison.” (Sen. Joesph Lieberman on Meet The Press) Roundabout "They Got Saddam! They Got Saddam!" Related PostsFlorida Judge Rules No Signs for Foley Replacement at Polling Centers“You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.”Big rocks keep falling on my head…About The Author KevinKevin founded Wizbang in 2003. He still contributes occasionally and handles all the technical and design work for the site.13 Comments mac December 14, 2003 You’ve GOT to be kidding me. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard all day. Ebenezer McGehee December 14, 2003 Funny, “mac,” but I was going to say that about your comment… jewdez December 14, 2003 I think Lieberman is still smarting from the Gore endorsement of Dean… Kevin December 14, 2003 Yep. All the Democrats who voted for the war resolution are using this as an opportunity to bash Dean. Given that he’s been on them for their votes for months it’s only fair that they turn the tables on him. Beau December 14, 2003 Let’s not forget that if Howard Dean had his way, 455 American men and women would most likely still be alive. In my opinion, our soldiers should only be asked to die for OUR freedom. That said, I’m pleased that Saddam Hussein was captured alive…and as a result will NOT be made into a martyr. I hope that his capture speeds up our withdrawal from Iraq. Perhaps Bush will be able to get something right before his 4 years are up. Juliette December 14, 2003 I suppose that volunteering for this duty means nothing to you, Beau. Given that each and every one of the soldiers that died signed a contract of his/her own free will means that they were asked. A “no” answer would mean not signing the contract: a simple decision to make.That some think that our military members are too stupid to figure out what the ramifications of signing a contract are, is very telling.To Hades with those who insult the intelligence of some of the most noble among us! Rodney Dill December 14, 2003 OF course if Gore and Lieberman had been elected in 2000, then bin laden and the taliban would still be in power in Afghanstan, and bin laden would have in his hands a letter from Gore condemning him for the negative environmental impact done to city of New York for his (bin Laden’s) attack on the WTC. Ben December 15, 2003 What Beau said was perhaps the single most naive statement I’ve ever heard. Yes, perhaps those particular 455 American soldiers would still be alive if Bush did nothing after 9/11 but issue stern condemnations as to how International Law was violated and sic Interpol on Osama and Al-Q’ada. However, if Bush did not oust the Taliban and did not oust Saddam (Al-Q’ada’s allies – and don’t tell me there’s no evidence linking Saddam to Al-Q’ada, there’s mountains of it), it is highly likely that thousands more Americans would have died in terrorist atacks because we did nothing to prevent it.Beau’s argument is the same as arguing that no American lives would have been lost if we’d just surrendered after Pearl Harbor. What would have happened if the U.S. surrendered is that Japan and/or Germany would have occupied the U.S., all the jews in the world would be dead (including those in the U.S.), along with countless non-Aryans and Chinese.I’m sure Beau believes that the U.S. shouldn’t have declared war against Germany – Japan’s ally – because we didn’t have any proof that Germany was involved with Pearl Harbor. Perhaps we should just dissolve all police forces in the U.S. because all the officers killed would still be alive if we simply didn’t try to stop crime. Beau December 15, 2003 Ben, please link me to the “mountain’s of evidence” linking Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden (or his terrorist group). From what I saw on the news…it looks like Saddam wasn’t really in touch with anyone down there with the Mars bars.I would venture to say that there is MORE evidence linking George W. Bush and his administration to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein than you could come up with to link Saddam and Osama directly.Donald Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam Hussein – Dec 1983 Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush’s business ties A Way To Oust Saddam – Project for the New American Century (proof that republicans have had a boner for Hussein since the late 90’s)Ben, you also bring up WWII which was (if I recall my history lessons correctly) a very unpopular war to get into. We were attacked, and then we attacked our attackers. We fought Germany as well, but it’s not like they were minding their own business. They were invading our allies and other sovereign nations. Oh, the other difference is that WWII was not started by the U.S. as a war of aggression based on lies with no clear goal.Maybe while you’re digging up that mountain of evidence, you can find one solid quote from George W. Bush saying anything remotely close to what will constitute a “victory” in Iraq. Will it be when Iraqis elect their own ruler? Will it be when we capture Saddam? (guess not) Will it be when they are a Christian democracy? Will it be when Bush gets re-elected? Ben December 16, 2003 Beau,Here’s evidence that Saddam was linked to Al-Q’ada.WWII was unpopular, and the majority of Americans did not want to get involved, until we were bombed at Pearl Harbor. Then, by no means was the war unpopular, just as the majority of Americans favor liberating Iraq.After WWII, the world learned its lesson – never again to appease tyrants. That just emboldens them. Saddam was not “minding his own business.” How about those 17 U.N. Resolutions he thumbed his nose at? Invading Kuwait? Gassing the Kurds?Moreover, if you think we had no clear goals in liberating Iraq, you are mistaken.Of course, the CIA did pay Saddam in the early 80’s when he was fighting the (even worse) Iranians, but – again returning to the police metaphor – the police have to make deals with criminals for testimony in order to put other criminals away. Doing so does not “link” the police with the criminal, any more than Bush I’s CIA paying scumbags like Saddam for information “links” Bush II with Saddam. Ben December 16, 2003 Here’s more evidence. Or, hear straight from the horse’s mouth. Beau December 16, 2003 Ben, I noticed that all of your links (save for the one from the horse’s mouth) are all from the same source. I did see the heading above Bush’s speech (the one you linked me to) that says “Denial and Deception” and I think that should preface every single thing the guy says. Personally, I think the media have a bias to report whatever will get ratings and by extension, advertising dollars. Listen, it’s nothing personal, I do enjoy defending my opinions and hearing those of others…but we aren’t going to change eachother’s mind. I don’t know about you, but I think we’ve devoted enough of our time to this issue, and I look forward to disagreeing with you in the future. -Beau Ben December 16, 2003 Agreed.