Tuesday, December 16, 2003
Even if the content is true on the ads being run by the Gephardt interest group in Iowa against Dean, I denounce them for two reasons: their imagery and soft money. First, there is no need to use Bin Laden’s face to make the point since Dean did support the Afghan war. Second, the soft money needs to go…
It would be far better to run a commercial with hard money that attacks Dean for his support of war in Iraq. Show how he knew the Biden-Lugar resolution (similar to the second resolution which passed) would have allowed Bush to go to Iraq unilateral. A fact, Dean admitted later. Mention of course, how Dean said we should give Saddam 30-60 days and attack unilaterally if the UN didn’t act. Then attack Dean for not supporting the war, and how he argued the resolution was equivalent to supporting the war. Show how a no-vote on the war would not have given the President leverage to get the inspectors back into the Iraq. Show how not giving the international community the ability to hold rogue nations (who misuse weapons of mass destruction) will endanger our country long-term. Now (on Hardball tonight - hard unless you are Dean) Trippi is arguing now Dean’s position was to build an international coalition before attacking, but we haven’t seen these type of statements until very recently with the NEW attempted foreign policy competency image make-over. Dean should not be attacked here for his conclusion, but for coming to the same conclusion Kerry reached a year and three months ago.
The end of the commercial should just ask the audience whether Dean is an opportunistic flip-flopper or might suffer from being bi-polar. (Strike that last comment, I don’t want to slander bi-polar sufferers with a comparison to Dean).
In the post 9-11 world, wars on rogue nations will be unavoidable to prevent WMD proliferation. The question is whether we do it unilateral (like Bush, Cheney, and the oldest Dean personality support), whether we just leave everyone to their own devices and let WMD proliferate (like Nadar, Kucinich and the recently shed Dean personality supported) or whether we do it with international coalitions (like Kerry, Biden and McCain supported and the newest Dean).
If you wonder why it is so hard to rebut Dean’s statements on the war, it because he is on all sides of the issue. So will the real Slim Shady please stand up, please stand up?
It would be far better to run a commercial with hard money that attacks Dean for his support of war in Iraq. Show how he knew the Biden-Lugar resolution (similar to the second resolution which passed) would have allowed Bush to go to Iraq unilateral. A fact, Dean admitted later. Mention of course, how Dean said we should give Saddam 30-60 days and attack unilaterally if the UN didn’t act. Then attack Dean for not supporting the war, and how he argued the resolution was equivalent to supporting the war. Show how a no-vote on the war would not have given the President leverage to get the inspectors back into the Iraq. Show how not giving the international community the ability to hold rogue nations (who misuse weapons of mass destruction) will endanger our country long-term. Now (on Hardball tonight - hard unless you are Dean) Trippi is arguing now Dean’s position was to build an international coalition before attacking, but we haven’t seen these type of statements until very recently with the NEW attempted foreign policy competency image make-over. Dean should not be attacked here for his conclusion, but for coming to the same conclusion Kerry reached a year and three months ago.
The end of the commercial should just ask the audience whether Dean is an opportunistic flip-flopper or might suffer from being bi-polar. (Strike that last comment, I don’t want to slander bi-polar sufferers with a comparison to Dean).
In the post 9-11 world, wars on rogue nations will be unavoidable to prevent WMD proliferation. The question is whether we do it unilateral (like Bush, Cheney, and the oldest Dean personality support), whether we just leave everyone to their own devices and let WMD proliferate (like Nadar, Kucinich and the recently shed Dean personality supported) or whether we do it with international coalitions (like Kerry, Biden and McCain supported and the newest Dean).
If you wonder why it is so hard to rebut Dean’s statements on the war, it because he is on all sides of the issue. So will the real Slim Shady please stand up, please stand up?
# posted by AB @ 9:25 PM 
