Look Who's Linking to PoliBlog:
Absinthe and Cookies
Accidental Verbosity
Admiral Quixote's Roundtable
All Day Permanent Red
All Things Jennifer
Ann Althouse
The American Mind
Arguing with signposts
Asymmeterical Information
B-Town Blog Boys
Backcountry Conservative
Balloon Juice
Bananas and Such Begging to Differ
The Bemusement Park
Bewtween the Coasts
Betsy's Page
The Big Picture
Blogs for Bush
Boots and Sabers
The Bully Pulpit
Caffeinated Musing
California Yankee
Captain's Quarters
Chicago Report
Chicagoland of Confusion
Citizen Smash
Collected Thoughts
The Command Post
Common Sense and Wonder
Confessions Of A Political Junkie
Conservative and Right
Cranial Cavity
The Daily Lemon
Daly Thoughts
DANEgerus Weblog
Dart Frog on a Cactus
Dean's World Dear Free World
Brad DeLong
The Disagreeable Conservative Curmudgeon
Down to the Piraeus
Drink this...
Earthly Passions
The Education Wonks
the evangelical outpost
Eye of the Storm
The Flying Space Monkey Chronicles
The Friendly Ghost
Functional, if not decorative
The Galvin Opinion
The Glittering Eye
Haight Speech
The Hedgehog Report
Heh. Indeed.
Hennessy's View
High Desert Skeptic
Robert Holcomb
I love Jet Noise
Idlewild South
Independent Thinker
Insults Unpunished
Internet Ronin
Ipse Dixit
It Can't Rain All The Time...
The Jay Blog
Jen Speaks
Joefish's Freshwater Blog
John Lemon blog
Judicious Asininity
The Kudzu Files
Liberty Father
Life and Law
Locke, or Demosthenes?
Gary Manca
Mark the Pundit
Mediocre but Unexciting
Mental Hiccups
Miller's Time
Mind of Mog
Minorities For Bush
Mr. Hawaii
The Moderate Voice
The Modulator
Much Ado
My opinion counts
my thoughts, without the penny charge
My Word
Neophyte Pundit
New England Republican
neWs Round-Up
No Pundit Intended
Nobody asked me, but...
Obsidian Wings
Occam's Toothbrush
On the Fritz
On the Third Hand
One Fine Jay
Out of Context
Outside the Beltway
Peppermint Patty
John Pierce
The Politicker
The Politburo Diktat
Political Annotation
Political Blog For The Politically Incorrect
Power Politics
Practical Penumbra
Priorities & Frivolities
Prof. Blogger's Pontifications
Pundit Heads
The Queen of All Evil
Quotes, Thoughts, and other Ramblings
Ramblings' Journal
Random Acts of Kindness
Random Nuclear Strikes
Ranting Rationalist
Read My Lips
Reagan Country
A Republican's Blog
The Review
Right Side of the Rainbow
Right Wingin-It
Right Wing News
Right Voices
Rightward Reasonings
riting on the wall
Rooftop Report
The Sake of Argument
Secular Sermons
Sha Ka Ree
She Who Will Be Obeyed!
The Skeptician
The Skewed
small dead animals
Sneakeasy's Joint
SoCal Law Blog
A Solo Dialogue
Southern Musings
Speed of Thought...
Spin Killer
Matthew J. Stinson
The Strange Political Road Trip of Jane Q. Public
Stuff about
Target Centermass
Templar Pundit
The Temporal Globe
Tex the Pontificator
Texas Native
think about it...
Tobacco Road Fogey
Tony Talks Tech
The Trimblog
Use The Forks!!
Wall of Sleep
Weapons of Mass Discussion
Who Knew?
The Window Manager
WizBang Tech
The World Around You
The Yin Blog
You Big Mouth, You!
Non-Blogs Linking to PoliBlog: - Alabama Weblogs

AJC's 2004 Election Politics Sites and Blogs Campaign Finance
Welcome to World O' Blogs
Yahoo! Directory Political Weblogs
Young Elephant
Sunday, December 14, 2003
Dean Speaks

By Steven Taylor @ 9:56 am

The Corner on National Review Online has a clip of Dean’s reaction. Apart from the congrats to the troops, he calls for the internationalization of the effort by bringing in the UN, NATO and others.

Could someone explain the logic of that to me, please?

Filed under: Iraq
  • Backcountry Conservative linked with End of the Road for Saddam
  • Blogs for Bush linked with More Blog Reactions

Click here to go to the main page.


  1. Lieberman hinted at it today, when he reminded viewers (on NBC I think) that Dean’s policies would have kept Saddam in power. This is the new mantra against Dean - to be used mainly by Gephardt and Lieberman: Dean’s policies would have kept him in power.

    And, if Dean win the nomination, he will need to defend his position during Saddam’s trial (hopefully).

    Comment by mark — Sunday, December 14, 2003 @ 10:02 am

  2. It’s all about Duck, M.D.’s exit strategy. Dean opposed the Iraq War and wants to internationalize it to get U.S. troops out. Saying what he said now is just an good time considering the events. How pro-Duck webloggers like Oliver Willis will take this (since he’s been bashing Bush because he thinks they want to cut-and-run) I don’t know. I suspect their knee-jerk anti-Bush feelings will trump everything else.

    Comment by Sean Hackbarth — Sunday, December 14, 2003 @ 10:56 am

  3. What? You guys think everything is over because we got Saddam? I certainly hope this changes things, but what if they don’t? I remember the reaction from the RWAP when they killed his kids. We have yet to find out anything from Saddam, and it’ll be interesting to hear what he has to say.

    But geesh. You guys really are icon-based. There’s still a lot of others out there to coordinate the attacks n’ such. Let’s hope we get them soon.

    And the rest of the situation. The Iraqi economy, the lack of power. The lack of gas with the winter coming up…

    Geesh. You would think that the guy was single handedly responsible for all that and it will magically disapear now that he is captured.

    Something about chickens and counting them before they are hatched.

    Comment by Hal — Sunday, December 14, 2003 @ 12:13 pm

  4. no one is saying that it is all over. Indeed, everyone has ben saying quite the opposite.

    Comment by Steven — Sunday, December 14, 2003 @ 12:56 pm

  5. Hal,

    Sometimes I think that you react to what you think the other side is saying, rather than what they are saying…

    Comment by Steven — Sunday, December 14, 2003 @ 12:56 pm

  6. Indeed, Hal, a challenge: tell me one person of significance who thinks that this means it’s over.

    Also, explain to me why this means, a la Howard, that this is the perfect time to hand things over to the UN?

    Comment by Steven — Sunday, December 14, 2003 @ 1:00 pm

  7. You asked: “Could someone explain the logic of that to me, please?”

    I answered: Nothing has changed. The logic of internationalization remains the same. Saddam’s capture changed absolutely nothing of that.

    Where’s the logic in asking your question if you thought otherwise?

    Comment by Hal — Sunday, December 14, 2003 @ 1:45 pm

  8. As to the “perfect timing", why not? We got the symbol, why not use it to leverage internationalization? The capture will have short legs if nothing else changes, so why not use the jubilation as leverage in the effort?

    What’s so hard to understand about this?

    Comment by Hal — Sunday, December 14, 2003 @ 1:47 pm

  9. The logic I wanted explained is why the captureof Saddam should automatically equal the idea that the time is now riper for the UN, et al., to take over.

    Comment by Steven — Sunday, December 14, 2003 @ 1:47 pm

  10. But weren’t you the one saying a few posts ago that “us guys” are too “iconic"? Now you seem to be arguing that this the symbol of Saddam should result in a radical shift in policy.

    I think this is a huge step forward, but not one that radically changes the transition process. I see nothing about today’s events that would increase my confidence that the UN would be a better stewart of Iraq than the US as we make the move to turn the country over to Iraqi rule.

    Comment by Steven — Sunday, December 14, 2003 @ 1:51 pm

  11. No, I don’t think it will be a sea change in policy from this administration. I’m merely saying that it could be used as such. What’s the problem with suggesting it could be used in this way? Yes, the icons do have power, but what kind of power? Can Saddam’s capture be used for much else? The use seems to be merely a political plus for the Administration and not much else. I don’t think this will have an effect on the insurgent groups. It won’t change the situation of the average Iraqi one whit.

    But I do think it could have had some leverage on the international community if done right. Slight, but every little bit helps. Instead, it’s just going to become another campaign issue.

    Comment by Hal — Sunday, December 14, 2003 @ 2:00 pm

  12. I disagree-I think this alleviates much of the fear of the average Iraqi, which will make the insurgency less effective over the long haul and aid the reconstruction effort. Prior to today there was always the chance the Saddam could return. That is now off the table.

    Comment by Steven — Sunday, December 14, 2003 @ 2:31 pm

  13. That’s a two edged sword. As Juan Cole points out.

    My wife, Shahin Cole, suggested to me an ironic possibility with regard to the Shiites. She said that many Shiites in East Baghdad, Basra, and elsewhere may have been timid about opposing the US presence, because they feared the return of Saddam. Saddam was in their nightmares, and the reprisals of the Fedayee Saddam are still a factor in Iraqi politics. Now that it is perfectly clear that he is finished, she suggested, the Shiites may be emboldened. Those who dislike US policies or who are opposed to the idea of occupation no longer need be apprehensive that the US will suddenly leave and allow Saddam to come back to power. They may therefore now gradually throw off their political timidity, and come out more forcefully into the streets when they disagree with the US. As with many of her insights, this one seems to me likely correct.

    Comment by Hal — Sunday, December 14, 2003 @ 3:05 pm

  14. Wow. I just see on ABC news that not only are the democrats calling for using this capture as an opportunity to internationalize the effort, but so is Santorum - in his own way.

    “With Saddam gone, maybe there will be another opportunity to re-look at the situation and understand that it is in everybody’s best interest to participate in this process,” Santorum said in a conference call with reporters.

    Comment by Hal — Sunday, December 14, 2003 @ 3:44 pm

  15. The logic is quite simple, Dr. Poliblogger. If you child wants dessert, you tell him that he must eat a good dinner, including some foods that are good for him but that he may not particularly like (e.g., squash, green beans). If he refuses to eat those foods and instead throws a temper tantrum, you simply give him a large chocolate chip cookie and pat him on the back saying, “What a good boy you are.”

    Now, is anybody wondering why Dean’s son was arrested recently?

    Comment by John Lemon — Sunday, December 14, 2003 @ 9:52 pm

  16. But Hal, John, JC, JohnC, Huey, Duey, Doc, Sleepy, Grump, Dopey or what ever name you are using today, you miss Santorum’s point. (I kinda like Dopey)

    “With Saddam gone, maybe there will be another opportunity to re-look at the situation and understand that it is in everybody’s best interest to participate in this process,” Santorum said in a conference call with reporters.

    While you goofball liberals think that Saddam’s capture is somehow a sign and failure and we need to get France to save our ass, (as if!) Santorum is saying that now the FRENCH and the GERMANS have the opportunity to quit supporting a dictator that is no longer in power and work on the side of liberty and freedom.

    While the liberals think this is the time for Bush to go begging, in reality it is an opportunity for France and Germany to get with the program.

    Comment by Paul — Sunday, December 14, 2003 @ 10:20 pm

  17. Hal,

    I am nt oppossed to the concept of increased internationalization (note my posts in opposition to the Bush administration’s policy on contracts), but I simply don’t see the Saddam capture as an entre to turn over the reigns to the UN.

    Comment by Steven — Monday, December 15, 2003 @ 8:02 am

  18. Forget “logic” in any discussion with a reality-challenged liberal. NOTHING matters to them! Certainly not “logic.” Why waste time arguing with them? Liberals aren’t going to accept ANY facts, or even listen to them. They don’t CARE about logic! For them, facts don’t play into this AT ALL. Liberals are now simply 100% reactionaries. They do not use logic they way normal people do. They simply REACT to Bush - negatively. They know only one creed in life: “If Bush does it, it’s wrong.” How pathetic!

    Comment by KK — Monday, December 15, 2003 @ 6:07 pm

RSS feed for these comments.

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>



Take a Look At This!
  • Tabloid News
  • Word of The Day
  • Chronograph Watches
  • Office Shredders
  • Cash Registers
  • Ricoh Fax Machines
  • IBM Typewriters
  • Copy Machines
  • UNIX Consulting
  • Web Design

Visitors Since 2/15/03

Powered by WordPress