Yepsen, Des Moines Register: Dems Must Decide, Is Dean Still Viable?

[flpoljunkie]

http://desmoinesregister.com/opinion/stories/c5917686/22987738.html

By DAVID YEPSEN
Register Political Columnist
12/16/2003

The post-Saddam phase of the 2004 Democratic presidential campaign began Monday. Democrats must now decide a simple question: Do they want to nominate a candidate who voted to go to war to oust Saddam Hussein, or do they want one who opposed the idea? All other issues and differences seem much smaller in comparison to this issue.

It's been simmering on the Democratic burner for months, and Saddam's capture just caused it to boil up again. The Democratic Party ripped itself up over war and peace issues during Vietnam, and seems poised to do it again. No candidate seems to have found a middle ground that is acceptable to all factions.

Candidates who voted for the war in Congress are unacceptable to the many anti-war activists backing Howard Dean. Some threaten to stay home in November if Dean isn't the nominee. Yet supporters of the pro-war candidates are suggesting that Dean's opposition to the conflict reflects his inexperience and that his anti-war position will lead the party to a crashing defeat next year.

Tough decision.

...more...

[Melinda]

1. This is a non-issue. Where's Osama again?

I just don't get it. :shrug:

[GalleryGod]

2. Inevitable? Yup. Viable? Nope.

Karl's #1 Draft Pick, imho.

Hanging out on the department computer in the Faculty Lounge,
:smoke: G.G.

[Capn Sunshine]

3. We didn't go to war to oust Saddam, it was the threat of WMD

how conveniently THAT has faded into the background.

IRAQ all fixed cause we caught Saddam? Don't make me laugh/cry.

[Hep]

4. LOL

Someone needs to be bookmarking these threads!

Adventures in Cluelessness! When people who write politics have no ability to GRASP politics.

They can add that idiotic installment of NPR's The Connection today. They actually suggested that if you opposed the invasion of Iraq, you're left-liberal.

I mean, !!!

[Zero Gravitas]

5. They have no shame

Capturing Saddam changes NOTHING about whether invading Iraq was a good idea or not.

[dansolo]

6. Except they didn't vote to oust Saddam Hussein

So now are we supposed to buy into the Republican spin that this war was about ousting Saddam? What about the imminent "mushroom cloud" and Colin Powell's little vial of Anthrax?

[damnraddem]

10. And it if was all to oust Saddam, that was 'mission accomplished' long ago

Or was the invasion undertaken in order to ARREST Saddam?

So, it doesn't matter what happens to Iraq, how many U.S. troops have died or will still die, how many more enemies America makes? All that was important was either ousting or arresting Saddam?

Or is little Dubya now dressing up in a sheriff costume rather than an aviator costume?

[hatrack]

7. Yepsen is full of sour owl shit

Anybody spotted the WMD, Dave? Anybody seen my old friend Osama? Can you tell me where he's gone?

[damnraddem]

8. The decision isn't tough at all.

The tough one is deciding whether to go to Iowa in January (brrrrrrr!) to canvas for Dean.

[CMT]

9. yep, Yepsen he is viable

and the democratic voters will decide. Besides the capture of Saddam changes what? We are still in Iraq and the country is still in chaos and we were led there by a president who told one lie after another to involve this country. We got involved in a war which took valuable resources away from the real war on terrorism.

This propaganda victory is nothing but a empty horse and will not have any legs.

[mzmolly]

11. So is Kerry proud of his vote now?

Oh, and it's not a tough decision. Deans the man!