Howard Dean
July 22nd, 2003
As if saying, “We don’t know that yet,” when asked by Wolf Blitzer if the Iraqi people were much better off without Saddam Hussein wasn’t enough to clue you in on how much of an idiotic ideologue Howard Dean is, his reaction to the deaths of Qusay and Uday Hussein are even more proof that Howard Dean is a Liberal Idiot.
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Presidential candidate Howard Dean, a staunch opponent of the U.S.-led war against Iraq, shrugged off the deaths of Saddam Hussein’s two sons Tuesday, saying “the ends do not justify the means.” He scolded Democratic rivals for backing the conflict.
The end doesn’t justify the means???
This is Dean’s major shortcoming, which will ultimately cost him the Presidential election, if not the Democratic nomination first. He’s completely blinded by liberal ideology that not only can he not even concede the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam Hussein in power, he can’t even make even the slightest suggestion, that he feels this is a victory for the United States. He knows this only stands to help George W. Bush and boost morale among coalition forces in Iraq. Dean has to downplay this all because of his radical left wing hate-campaign for the Democratic nomination and for the Presidency.
Dean is shifting himself further in the wrong direction on the political spectrum for his campaign.
While Dean (obviously painfully) concedes that `It’s a victory for the Iraqi people,” he does however drivel out “but it doesn’t have any effect on whether we should or shouldn’t have had a war.”
Translation: “Of course the Iraqi people are better off – but we shouldn’t have gone in. We should have let them all suffer.”
That’s what he’s saying. He’s making a half-sincere concession, but nevertheless does what he can to retain his liberal armor.
Welcome to the Liberal Idiots List, Howard Dean. Your entry has been long overdue.
July 23rd, 2003 at 12:24 pm
Democratic Rule No. 1: Never, ever admit that you were wrong, unless you switch from pro-life to pro-abortion, then - and only then - may you admit that your prior position was dead wrong.
July 23rd, 2003 at 7:22 pm
And to think, if there were any hope of a good-enough Dim candidate I was thinking he might be giving The Bush a run for his money. Now I know not to hold my breath.
July 24th, 2003 at 2:14 am
In the case of Saddam and his sons, etc., the “ends” are the “means”, killing terrorists to thus stop terrorists, which is identical to defending ourselves against terrorists, which is also “credibility”.
July 24th, 2003 at 3:20 am
Dean(paraphrase): Killing sons victory for Iraqis, but doesn’t justify war
…
Questioned about the deaths of Saddam’s sons, Odai and Qusai, in Iraq, Dean dismissed suggestions that it was a victory for the Bush administration.
“It’s a victory for the Iraqi people … but it doesn’t have any effect on whether we should or shouldn’t have had a war,” Dean said. “I think in general the ends do not justify the means.”
August 13th, 2003 at 6:58 pm
Idiodic idealogue doesn’t begin to describe Howard Dean. His supporters have a frenzied enthusiasm for someone they don’t even seem to know much about. Dean’s approach may be stirring up the angry liberals but it’ll get old fast. The Dean campaign’s “grassroots” efforts are only alienating people who choose to think for themselves.
September 6th, 2003 at 8:28 am
see
“Dean’s Constitutional Hang-up”
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank08122003.html
“Is Dean a Criminal Too?”
http://seattle.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=31720&group=webcast
In a 1997 Vt News Bureau interview, Dean admitted his desire to appoint
judges willing to subvert the bill of rights. Now the fallout from Dean’s
appointments are before the US 2nd Circuit at Foley Square, NYC in two
outrageous cases. Docket #s 03-7036, 02-6150, 02-6199, 02-6201 One case is
being prosecuted by Washington, DC first amendment attorney Robert
Corn-Revere against two of Dean’s judges for their banishment of a Vermont
“citizen-reporter” for life from all state courthouses because he criticized
one of Dean’s judicial appointees. The other case features Dean’s judges
violating Double Jeopardy, First Amendment, State law and the State
constitution. See Docket No. 99-445 (Vt. Dec. 13, 2000), aff’g, Docket No.
167-1-99 WmCr (Windham D. Ct. Aug. 30, 1999) Both cases have been briefed
before the Manhattan Court awaiting oral argument. Also filing a brief in
federal court against Dean’s appointees is the Thomas Jefferson Center For
The Protection of Freedom of Expression.
Below are links regarding Dean’s voicing his problem with the Bill of
Rights. He constantly complains about “legal technicalities” (i.e. the Bill
of Rights) as he did in the June 22 meet the press interview.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/government.shtml
http://www.txtriangle.com/archive/1049/coverstory.htm
A link to a story regarding the courthouse banishment case.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//news.aspx?id=5354
or…
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13300
A commentary on Dean’s subversion of the public defender system.
http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003681.html#003681
Dean’s statement on “re-evaluation” of our “civil liberties”.
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html
Criminal sentences doubled during Dean’s tenure as a result of his
appointments. I wonder how many of those serving these inflated sentences
were also subjugated to constitutional deprivations at the hands of Dean’s
Judicial appointees leading to their convictions? How many of those serving
inflated sentences were prejudiced by Deans’ subversion of the public
defender system mandated by the 6th amendment?
In the Meet the Press interview with Dean while discussing the death
penalty he stated,
“So I just-life without parole, which we have which I actually got passed
when I was lieutenant governor- the problem with life without parole is that
people get out for reasons that have nothing to do with justice. We had a
case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted,
then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new
trial was ordered and the victim wouldn’t come back and go through the
second trial. “
http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1
Now, according to Dean, the Bill of Rights (ie. legal technicalities) has
“nothing to do with justice”. In the above quote, is he saying that if
someone was unconstitutionally convicted it is better that the government
kill them before they can point out the constitutional problems with their
conviction?
A further commentary on Dean’s death penalty stand.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1907-2003Jul2¬Found=true
and, noting the “anti-due-process” Dean message,
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/930194.asp?0si=-&cp1=1#BODY
See 1994 Yale Law School commencement discussing the danger of our leaders dismissing the “provisions of the Bill of Rights as mere technicalities.”.
http://www.schr.org/reports/docs/Yale%2094.pdf
Scott Huminski
Cary, NC