Anyone hear Howard Dean issueing his comments on Iraq today? It may be him just shooting off his mouth again, but at least one of his statements struck me as just nuts: the idea that we should relocate 80,000 troops from Iraq to a nearby country so that they can better fight Al-Zarqawi. How does this even make any sense? He's in Iraq - why should we send 80,000 troops to Turkey or Saudia Arabia to try to fight him? Why not send them to Germany and try to "fight" him there? If he's not even going to be serious about the war on terrorism, why should I ever consider voting for a Democrat until the war is over?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/...raq/index.html

Did you listen????? He thinks removing them to another country for training. We have already done this with some troops. It is too difficult on Iraq dirt to know if you have an insurgency among the group you are training. US would have better security to train then place back when they are ready. It has already been considered just wait when the death toll hits 3000 Bush will do that and even begin to think he thought of it. Actally his father even endorsed it.

I think he's just kind of dumb, but that doesn't mean he represents everyone who's a democrat. It sure sounded to me like he said he wanted to fight terrorism in Iraq by having troops in a different country - that doesn't really make any sense to me either. He didn't say anything about just doing that to train people that I heard. The quote I saw was:

"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and reserve troops home immediately. . . . We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and it's a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight [terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi], who came to Iraq after this invasion."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/idea...p-316708c.html

Howard Dean is a non-entity.

Howard Stern before Howard Dean,,, and then were going to Oregon, and Idaho, and Montana and South Dakota, and Illionois and Wisconson, and Salem, and Jersey, and tallahassee and WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the White House!
God Forbid,
b2k

Put this in your corn husk and smoke it . . .

MILWAUKEE, Apr. 5, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(AP) Thousands of voters turned out in Wisconsin to offer a purely symbolic but heartfelt message: Bring the troops home from Iraq.

By margins overwhelming in some places and narrow in others, voters in 24 of 32 communities approved referendums Tuesday calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Joy Kenworthy, 78, of Madison, doesn't mind that the nonbinding referendums have no bearing on federal policy. She was one of more than 24,300 voters in the state capital who gave 68 percent support to a referendum calling for the pullout.

says you. If the media hadn't sobotaged his campaign and the Democratic primary voters weren't morons, you'd be calling him President Dean right now

__________________
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-- Stephen Colbert



Support our troops in the only way that word support can have real meaning -- by saving their lives, their limbs, their sanity. By bringing them home.
-- Howard Zinn


The relentless pursuit of corporate dollars by practically all of our top political leaders shows that we no longer have elections -- we have auctions.
-- Jim Hightower

Haha. Funny. Except that it is YEEEEEEEEEHASW.

Hey, I agree that the media crucified him on that scream. I, as a Repub, didn't like Dean, but I thought he was treated shabbily by the media.

And really, it surprised me. Makes one wonder why the media would have done so?

Anyways, what I meant is that Dean is a non-entity by virtue of his current position.