“Perhaps he didn’t consider that Saddam Hussein’s capture made America much safer - by making it very unlikely that Dean could be elected President.”

ROFLMFAO! THANKS nikita…you just made my day with THAT one!!!

Posted by: American_Defender2003 at December 18, 2003 04:16 PM

LOL… Nikita!
I’m going to steal this from you.. I’m confessing now.. and putting it as the signture line on one of my screen name emails!

That was really really good!

Posted by: TexasGal at December 18, 2003 04:28 PM

LMAO!

Posted by: Jeff B at December 18, 2003 05:51 PM

That was good.

Posted by: Jettison at December 18, 2003 06:23 PM

Sorry, breaking a bit of a promise here but what the heck.

The President of the United States Of America, The CiC of a Great Victorious Coalition. A man whose name is known around the world, and who……?
Just for us outsiders who only get the big news, seriously, who is Dean??
There is only one man to lead his friends (the free world) post 2004, and I suspect he’s in the right seat now!!

Posted by: Ubique at December 18, 2003 06:38 PM

And then there is THIS...from WAPO none-the-less!!!

Gotta love it…PLEASE, give MORE speeches Beano!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9995-2003Dec17.html

Thursday, December 18, 2003; Page A34

IN recent days a half-dozen leading Democrats have delivered major speeches on foreign policy. Mostly, they follow a similar track. Presidential candidates Howard Dean, John Edwards, John F. Kerry, Joseph I. Lieberman and Wesley K. Clark and shadow candidate Hillary Clinton accept many of the goals of the Bush administration but diverge sharply on the means to achieve them. All agree that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the danger that they will be acquired by terrorists, are critical threats. All chastise Mr. Bush for damaging U.S. alliances and all promise to rebuild them, while “internationalizing” Iraq’s postwar reconstruction.

Yet there are important differences between the Democratic front-runner, Howard Dean, and the other five. In his speech Monday, Mr. Dean alone portrayed the recruiting of allies for Iraq as a means to “relieve the burden on the U.S.” — that is, to quickly draw down American forces. Only he omitted democracy from his goals for Iraq and the Middle East. And only Mr. Dean made the extraordinary argument that the capture of Saddam Hussein “has not made Americans safer.”

Mr. Dean’s carefully prepared speech was described as a move toward the center, but in key ways it shifted him farther from the mainstream. A year ago Mr. Dean told a television audience that “there’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies,” but last weekend he declared that “I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States.” Mr. Dean has at times argued that the United States must remain engaged to bring democracy to Iraq, yet the word is conspicuously omitted from the formula of “stable self-government” he now proposes. The former Vermont governor has compiled a disturbing record of misstatements and contradictions on foreign policy; maybe he will shift yet again, this time toward more responsible positions.

Mr. Dean’s exceptionalism, however, is not limited to Iraq. It can be found in his support for limiting the overseas deployments of the National Guard — a potentially radical change in the U.S. defense posture — and in his readiness to yield to the demands of North Korea’s brutal communist dictatorship, which, he told The Post’s Glenn Kessler, “ought to be able to enter the community of nations.” Mr. Dean says he would end all funding for missile defense, a program supported by the Clinton administration, and also has broken with Mr. Clinton’s successful trade policies, embracing protectionism. Sadly, on trade his position is shared by every Democratic candidate except Mr. Lieberman (and Ms. Clinton).

It is Mr. Dean’s position on Iraq, however, that would be hardest to defend in a general election campaign. Many will agree with the candidate that “the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help and at unbelievable cost.” But most Americans understand Saddam Hussein for what he was: a brutal dictator who stockpiled and used weapons of mass destruction, who plotted to seize oil supplies on which the United States depends, who hated the United States and once sought to assassinate a former president; whose continuing hold on power forced thousands of American troops to remain in the Persian Gulf region for a decade; who even in the months before his overthrow signed a deal to buy North Korean missiles he could have aimed at U.S. bases. The argument that this tyrant was not a danger to the United States is not just unfounded but ludicrous.

Mr. Dean may be arguing Saddam Hussein’s insignificance in part because he is unwilling to make a commitment to Iraq’s future. He appears eager to extract the United States from the Middle East as quickly as possible, rather than encourage political and economic liberalization. His speech suggests a significant retreat by the United States from the promotion of its interests and values in the world. Mr. Edwards laid out a detailed and ambitious plan to prevent the spread of dangerous nuclear materials; Mr. Clark is proposing a new Atlantic Charter under which the United States would build an alliance to take on the transformation of the Middle East, among other initiatives. Mr. Dean’s biggest idea is to triple U.S. contributions to a global AIDS fund — an essential but narrow cause in which the United States would allow international institutions to take the lead. His most serious departure from the Democratic mainstream is not his opposition to the war. It is his apparent readiness to shrink U.S. ambitions, in Iraq and elsewhere, at a time when the safety of Americans is very much at stake.

Posted by: American_defender at December 18, 2003 07:08 PM

Given, THAT was an editorial…THIS was FRONT PAGE!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9661-2003Dec17.html

Dean’s Remarks Give Rivals Talking Points
His Readiness to Lead Is Questioned
By Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 18, 2003; Page A01

BURLINGTON, Vt. — Howard Dean’s penchant for flippant and sometimes false statements is generating increased criticism from his Democratic presidential rivals and raising new questions about his ability to emerge as a nominee who can withstand intense, sustained scrutiny and defeat President Bush.

in respect to Alan & Michele, I will let you all go read the rest! GOTTA love it…

Posted by: American_defender at December 18, 2003 07:13 PM

I’m going to make a ‘DARING,’ ‘Reputation Risking,’ prediction.

If Joseph Lieberman does not win the Democratic Primaries by a wide margin, I believe that within 1 year…. Joseph Lieberman will drop out of the Democratic Party and sign up for the Republican Party.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at December 18, 2003 11:25 PM

Wow now all Bush has to do is capture Sadam every couple of weeks for most of the next year and he’ll be a shoe in…

Posted by: AnyonebutBush2004 at December 19, 2003 04:57 AM

Posted by AnyonebutBush2004 at December 19, 2003 04:57 AM
Wow now all Bush has to do is capture Sadam every couple of weeks for most of the next year and he’ll be a shoe in…

No, all he has to do is sit back and let MORONS like Dean and YOU keep talking…the more the better! Hell, I think donating money to Dean to enable more speeches is better than donating directly to re-elect Bush!!! Dean, and ignorant sheep like you are a shoe in for MVP in Bush’s victory speech!!!

Posted by: American_Defender2003 at December 19, 2003 10:49 AM

BTW- I just HAD to post this stuff on Beano’s blog (blogforamerica) just for $hits & giggles yesterday! HILARIOUS! Undoubtedly some of them SHAT themselves they were so distraught! If you need a little comic relief (AS IF NNTK, ABB04, ptg, etc. were not ENOUGH!), check it out! Apparently, these ignorant sheep are running out of money (they USED to give $$ everytime a “troll” posted…figure as most of them probably earn minimum wage based on the intellect reflected in the discourse, that I cost them a YEARS SALARY!) and now have resorted to ‘writing one letter’ for every “troll” post! ROFLMFAO…I feel CERTAIN that some have SEVERE writers cramp after last night…!!!

Ohhh, and I have gotten SIX ‘Nasty Grams’ through email ALREADY! I just HAD to use a real email addy…should be even MORE fun responding to these than posting on the blog!!! ;-)

Posted by: American_Defender2003 at December 19, 2003 11:19 AM

You can only raid you hash money so many times to send a check to Dean I suppose. Plus those new pair of Birkenstocks isnt going to pay for themselves.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 19, 2003 11:28 AM

LOL!

(You kill me Mark!!!)

Posted by: American_Defender2003 at December 19, 2003 12:05 PM

I think that this is ridiculous! Why don’t you all stop patting yourselves on that back and open your eyes to what is happening in the world.

The economy is doing horribly, thousand of people are dying, we are shipping all of our jobs to undeveloped countries to whom are not getting any long term benefits at all. As a result we are loosing our middle class and creating a huge gap between the rich and the poor.

I love America as much as you, but I don’t want to see it going down to drain to Presidents who cannot do their job.

Not only that but calling someone an idiot and using words like SHAT doesn’t make you sound like an intellectual.

Posted by: mark at January 15, 2004 12:43 PM