April 13, 2003

FREEDOM'S BEAN COUNTERS.

The candidates for the Democratic nomination comment on the fall of Baghdad (Compiled by Newsweek)
"The reason I didn't support the war -- and I continue to maintain this position -- is because it opens up a new, dangerous pre-emptive doctrine.... We're going to spend a lot of money in Iraq.... It's going to be $200 billion. For $200 billion, we could insure every child under the age of 18 in this country, just like we do in the state of Vermont.... We've gotten rid of him (Saddam Hussein), I suppose that's a good thing, but there's going to be a long period where the United States is going to need to be maintained in Iraq and that's going to cost the American taxpayers a lot of money that could be spent on schools and kids."
- Former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont

"I have always supported the cause in Iraq. I think it is a just cause. I think that what we're doing there is right. I think it is a fight, among other things, for the liberation of the Iraqi people. We have to now show that we went there for the right reasons: by, as soon as we reasonably can, turning over the governing of the Iraqi people to the Iraqi people, by turning over the oil fields and the revenue from those oil fields to the Iraqi people."
- Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina

"Our highest responsibility is to keep our people safe. And the reason I supported this action was that I do not want to have another 9/11. I don't want weapons of mass destruction used in this society, and I think we have to do what we have to do to defend the security of our people. We also should feel very proud tonight of the young men and woman who are in Iraq putting up their lives and their injuries for us to be safe.... We are going to have more deficits as a result of this war. We have to get rid of almost all of the Bush tax cuts -- the one last year and whatever he tries to put on the books this year."
- Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri

"I voted against the resolution to authorize the president to use force against Iraq. I did so because I thought the war against Iraq would make us less secure, not more secure. Saddam Hussein is an evil person; he lives in a neighborhood with a lot of evil people. The question is where do we put our priorities for the safety of Americans? In my judgment those priorities should be to eliminate the shadowy groups of international terrorist organizations which killed almost 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11. I believe that the war in Iraq has actually reduced our ability to effectively carry out the war against terrorism."
- Sen. Bob Graham of Florida

"I support disarming Saddam Hussein, but I have been very critical of the way this administration went at it because it leaves the American people carrying a greater financial burden and an enormous repair job with NATO, the United Nations, the European community and the rest of world. And now this administration is laying out enormous plans for building roads, schools, hospitals, and providing books in Iraq, and it's time for us to demand that they lay out a plan that they do the same here in the United States of America."
- Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts

"We have to know the difference between defense and offense. I also think this war was about a pretext. It was not about whether they had weapons of mass destruction. Let's face it: Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction, homelessness is a weapon of mass destruction, lack of adequate education is a weapon of mass destruction, our children not having good neighborhoods is a weapon of mass destruction. We're blowing up bridges over the Tigris and Euphrates, (but) we're not building bridges in our own cities."
- Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio

"I supported the war and I did because I believe one of the first responsibilities of government, as our Constitution says, is to 'provide for the common defense.' History teaches us that if you leave a brutal, immoral dictator with weapons of mass destruction, eventually he will use them and all of our liberty and everything else we strive for will be compromised. But the choice between security for our nation and a better life for our children is a false choice. ... If we pull back this outrageously unfair and irresponsible tax cut program of President Bush, we could both protect our security and provide a better life for our children."
- Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut

"If we spent $80 billion to kill Saddam Hussein that's $79 billion too much. I'd rather see that money spent on providing health care for children, universal health care for our country, to build schools and provide quality education, to deal with domestic concerns of the American people. … Charity begins at home and if we're going to attend to our priorities we should take care of America first and American children first."
- Former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois

"I opposed the war and I'm still saying that I do not see the necessity for the war. I do not see where we've seen the nuclear weapons that we were told were there. I do not see the imminent danger. I do not see the necessity for the military action. I'm glad Saddam was toppled, but I also would like to see things toppled in this country, like no health insurance, like illiteracy, like childhood obesity. The real question to me is if we can come up with billions to occupy Iraq, why can't we come up with money for the budgets of the 50 states we already occupy?"
- Rev. Al Sharpton of New York

[Emphasis added.]
Posted by David Cohen at April 13, 2003 7:39 PM
Comments

The Democrats, although they love to accuse others of selfishness, are the party of materialism. Their top priority is generally to obtain more material goods for their supporters.



I don't think their comments are designed to make sense. They're just designed to spread the message that: You have less money because of the Bush presidency. Vote for me and you'll have more money.

Posted by: pj at April 13, 2003 8:40 PM

I found Al Sharpton's fervent plea, in this context, on the need to eliminate childhood obesity to be particularly poignant.



Can't get more pertinant than that.



Can one deny that Al has his finger on the pulse of the nation?

Posted by: Barry Meislin at April 14, 2003 1:58 AM

And it is funny that they think that Americans would like to spend less on our security and defense than on our material comfort, even after we were directly attacked. I suppose Lieberman and Graham and Gephardt are trying to finesse the whole provide for the security and defense thing, but it comes off sounding half-hearted.

Posted by: Buttercup at April 14, 2003 11:12 AM

The Democrats desire only to be our rulers, but can only become that with our permission. At the same time, they can't even demonstrate an ability to be our leaders. Their only hope for a future is for the Stupid Party of Bob Dole to reassert itself.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at April 14, 2003 1:12 PM
« EUROPE'S PROBLEM -- NOT ENOUGH SALT?: | Main | WATCH MY LIPS. »