Posted by Peter

Howard Dean recently stated that we were no safer after the capture of Saddam Hussein. I beg to differ - the notion that we aren't any safer because of his departure is assinine - because of his capture we've also captured other terrorists in Iraq (because of paperwork found in his briefcase) and other militants have been falling like flies lately because others in Iraq are more willing to share information. Here's a story at PowerLine talking about just that:


Andrew Sullivan on his blog points out the many contradictions of Dean:

"DEAN AGAIN: Interesting defense of unilateralism as a last resort by Howard Dean in USA Today today. My support for his fiestiness, and left-liberal clarity is beginning to wilt a little under the weight of some of what he has been saying. There's a difference between a conviction politician and someone who's just wacko. Bush planned an invasion of Iraq because of psychological problems? There was no middle-class tax cut, but I'll try and retain part of it in my upcoming tax plan? I'm committed to staying the course in Iraq but also running ads decrying candidates who had the temerity to vote for the actual funding for it? Oy.


Post a Comment