Is Howard Dean retarded?
Seriously. At first, I thought he was just cranking up the rhetoric but lately he’s off his meds.
24 Responses to “Is Howard Dean retarded?”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 16th, 2005 at 10:50 am
Yes.
August 16th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
how is he off his meds? The Iraqi Constitution is looking like it will include Sharia which will mean women will lose many of the rights they had under Saddam like property ownership, divorce, etc.
August 16th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
The rape rooms, which arguably are not the intended message, come to mind.
August 16th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
Uday
August 16th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
What do you bet that when Castro dies, Dean will lament the fact that under the new Cuban Constitution, the people won’t have the free health care and 100% literacy that they enjoyed under Fidel.
August 16th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
Thib..just out of curiousity..can you explain to me this fascination people have with Cuba. Why is US policy towards Cuba and China (or the USSR of past) so completely different when their human rights abuses are similar?
SU…no one is defending the rape rooms, but you have to remember that the Constitution affects all women, while presumably only a relatively small number of women were ever subjected to the rape rooms. And there is no guarantee that they won’t be used again, only that Saddam won’t be the one using them.
August 16th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Cuba always seems to be that way. Amnesty and HRW raise hell about Gitmo, but have long overlooked the plight of those on the other side of the island. Hollywood seems the same way. Spielberg and Oliver Stone virtually raised Castro up on a pedestral in the last ten years.
August 16th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
There is no “but.” Shame on you for attempting to create one.
August 16th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
Manish, can you give me one example of a functioning (key word) democracy where police “rape rooms” are allowed to officially exist?
I’d rather live in an imperfect democracy than a perfect totalitarian state.
August 16th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
Manish, it beats me why the Left has such fascination with Cuba and Castro. I guess they’re just stupid or evil.
August 16th, 2005 at 5:49 pm
CH…can you somehow guarantee me or anyone else that Iraq will become a “functioning” democracy? Of course not.
can you give me one example of a functioning (key word) democracy where police “rape rooms” are allowed to officially exist?
well this leaves you a lot of wiggle room. Uzbekistan, our wonderful ally in the war on terror, boils people to death and is a democracy. Of course, you can argue with me that boiling people to death isn’t the same as rape rooms and that rape rooms are worse simply because Bush has told you that Saddam is good and Uzbekistan is bad. Many countries have been known to use torture including India (though its probably not officially allowed to exist, though I’m sure that rape rooms didn’t officially exist in Saddams Iraq either), and Pakistan
(note the date of the report..it was pre-Musharaff and it does not rape).
August 16th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
that should be “*note* rape” rather than “not rape”
August 16th, 2005 at 6:51 pm
Of course I can’t guarantee Iraq is going to become a fully-functioning democracy.
But it’s a hell of a lot closer to it now than it was 3 years ago.
August 16th, 2005 at 7:05 pm
Ya know, a few years ago some sadistic NYPD cops buggered a gay man with a toilet plunger. Using your logic, torture exists in New York, even though it’s not “official”.
And you’re quite certain that Saddam disapproved of rape? If so, he must have forgotten to tell his sons; they were quite fond of it.
I never cease to be amazed by the moral contortions the Left will go to in order to make Bush appear to be a villain, no matter what the situation is.
August 16th, 2005 at 7:41 pm
Ya know, a few years ago some sadistic NYPD cops buggered a gay man with a toilet plunger. Using your logic, torture exists in New York, even though it’s not “official”.
so whats your point? Yes, bad shit happens everywhere…this is the whole faultyness of the Iraq debacle argument….All governments, either with the approval of the higher-ups (see GitMo torture memos) or not (the plunger incident), engage in bad shit. But somehow, the bad shit that Saddam engaged in required us to go in and get rid of him while we just let all the other bad shit that other governments go on without raising a finger and in many cases not even raising a peep.
And you’re quite certain that Saddam disapproved of rape
I never said he disapproved of it, merely that it wasn’t written official policy…in the same manner that it probably isn’t written official policy to use torture anywhere that its used.
August 16th, 2005 at 9:53 pm
Manish, are you mad that we took out Saddam, or are you mad that we didn’t simultaneously take out, or at least denounce, every single bad government, including, evidently, our own? Or are you just bitching to be bitching?
August 17th, 2005 at 12:43 am
Thib…there have been many justifications for this war. WMDs and Iraq/AQ link have been shown to be, shall we say, faulty. So as a result, the fall back has been Saddam was a bad person and thats why we had to take him down. My point is that its not a good enough reason to invade a country, because there are dozens of other countries (many our bussom buddies like Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) that fall under the same category. It reminds me of a question I kept posing at one point for which I’ve never received much more than a half-assed response…assuming that all of the reasons to invade Iraq are valid, wouldn’t it be more justifiable to invade many other countries including Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?
August 17th, 2005 at 8:17 am
Again: are you mad we invaded Iraq, or are you made we didn’t invade these other countries? Or do you just hate Bush, so you keep riding this hobby horse?
August 17th, 2005 at 10:41 am
Two college students reviewed the State Department releases and found 22 reasons for invading Iraq (can’t find link). How many need to be found true before the left accepts it as a justifiable act? How many other countries have had umpteen UN Resolutions against it?
Back on topic – I think Howard is doing whatever he can to stay in the headlines. I think he is working from an “any publicity is good publicity” mantra.
Slightly off topic – I am sure the leader of the Republic party makes statements and speeches on a regular basis. How come none of those get any publicity? Heck, I don’t even know the guy’s name. Yet Howlin’ Howie is front page every time he farts in someone’s general direction….
August 17th, 2005 at 11:59 am
are you mad we invaded Iraq
yes..has this not been clear for a long time?
How many need to be found true before the left accepts it as a justifiable act?
you mean like WMD and links to AQ?
How many other countries have had umpteen UN Resolutions against it?
umm..Israel
August 17th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
I see. Well, I don’t know why you insist on griping about it here, but whatever floats your boat.
Still, seems like even you could figure out the difference between a justification for invading a country and a motivation. The former is simply an argument for why something is or is not acceptable. The latter would depend on ones goals and whether not the invasion furthered them. Long-term strategic considerations would play a part here.
True, justifications and motivations aren’t completely orthogonal. However, I think it is possible to argue that invading a country would be just, while at the same time arguing that it wouldn’t be the best move in a given long-term strategy. And of course, one could argue, as you probably will from now until the next Democrat is elected, that invading Iraq was not only unjustifiable, but also a bad strategic move.
As it happens, I think that we are perfectly justified in invading any dictatorship we like, including our putative allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Whether or not that would further a long-term goal is another question, and what our desired long-term goals ought to be is still another question. And I am not the person who gets to answer those questions. You might want to see if Mrs. Sheehan will take you along when she gets her audience with the President.
August 17th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
The only reason that was needed to invade Iraq was Saddam’s multiple violations of the cease fire agreement that ended the first Gulf War. Iraq should have been invaded during the Clinton Administration the first time Saddam broke that agreement. Thus, the war was not preemptive in any way.
August 17th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Zoiks. A simple 1 sentence post gets 22 comments and I ask ‘what is a right’ and get 12. Oi.
August 17th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Well, personally I was afraid “What is a right” would turn into a flamewar.