He mis-spoke, right? He meant Saddam?
I actually remember somebody making that exact same mis-speak earlier.

Why doesn't Russert call him on it though? Should we just understand what he really means?

Y'know it's things like this that make Dean's other personality say YEAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!

Much as I think Howard Dean is the ne plus ultra of moonbats, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. I think he just mis-spoke. As for Russert's not catching it, well, kaka occurs.

"Why doesn't Russert call him on it though? Should we just understand what he really means?"

If Russert had grilled him about that statement or his other lies people would have accused Tim of picking on the handicapped. You see, if a Republican (say Quayle or Bush) misspeak it is the lead story of the evening news. If a moonbat says something goofy it's in character.

All I can say about Howie is, "keep talkin, baby." The more he shoots his mouth off, the larger the Republican majority will become.

Dean is delusional! He probably DID mean Saddam, but he actually mispoke and used Osama two times. I rolled my eyes so many times during the interview, my head hurts this morning! This guy is the gift that just keeps on giving!

Once again the Democrats have an opportunity to voice some sound ideas, but choose to attack the President instead. They have been attacking the Republicans for 5 years now, and still don't have a single idea in their little pea brains.

Preznit Bush, yesterday on the insurgency in Iraq:

"I think they're being defeated. And that's why they continue to fight."

Ah, now I get it: The more they fight, the more it's a sign that we're winning. A quick note: this isn't a mistatement. This is what Bush really thinks. Truly asstounding.

"Once again the Democrats have an opportunity to voice some sound ideas, but choose to attack the President instead."

And this sweeping conclusion is based on one quote pulled from a lengthy interview. The bright, clean logic of the Right once again on crystal clear display.

frameone, you pulled out one quote of the President's in your own post... what kind of conclusion should we draw from that?

"I think they're being defeated. And that's why they continue to fight."

Jon --

No context could make sense of what the president is trying to say here. The context of the quote follows but I challenge you to find the bit that makes the above idea make any sense. Can you find anywhere in the context below the key that explains the logic of gauging our success against CONTINUED violence as opposed to, say, the CESSATION of it?

"Q And if I may ask you, Mr. President, as you know, the casualties of Iraq is again high today -- 50 more people dying. Do you think that insurgence is getting harder now to defeat militarily? Thank you.

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I don't think so. I think they're being defeated. And that's why they continue to fight. The worst thing for them is to see democracy. The President can speak to that firsthand. The worst problem that an ideologue that uses terror to try to get their way is to see a free society emerge. And I'm confident we're making great progress in Iraq.

And clearly, it's dangerous and we mourn the loss of life. On the other hand, the eight-and-a-half million Iraqis who went to the polls sent a very clear message to the world, that they want to be free."

frameone, I think what the President was trying to say was that, as in wars of the past, the losing side tends to harder and more brutally just before it finally gives up or is defeated. Remember Japan in WWII? They just kept sending in the kamikazes until we dropped the nukes. Our other option was a large-scale land invasion of Japan, and that would have caused millions in casualities on both sides. Dropping the nukes saved millions of lives, even as it ended 150,000 lives.

I'm not necessarily saying that we need to "nuke the bastards" in this case, but the point remains that enemies often fight harder just before they're defeated. We just need to stick to it and stay strong until the terrorists in Iraq give up (Osama, too).

Um, that should read "the losing side tends to FIGHT harder..."
PIMF

And yet this has been the president's argument since the fall of Baghdad two years ago. You remember those desperate dead-enders? So how genuine do you think he's being here?

But look at how Bush has conflated two completely different things: democratic elections and the defeat of the insurgents. The arrival of democracy is not a defeat for the insurgency. The two simply are not connected. The former will not lead to the other. The insurgents may oppose democracy but democratic elections, in and of themselves, will do nothing to stop the insurgents from killing. You could argue that elections will drain support from the insurgents but why would it given that the insurgents and those who would support them believe the elections are illegitimate?

If you recognize that Bush is playing fast and loose with cause and effect all he's got is the argument that more violence means we're winning. Which is no argument at all. It makes no sense. And yet, he's been making it since day one.

"And this sweeping conclusion is based on one quote pulled from a lengthy interview. The bright, clean logic of the Right once again on crystal clear display."

frameone, did you *hear/read* the entire interview?

Dean's a great windbag...er....windfall.....for the Right.

Frameone, you got the President guuuud on that one.

The Iraqi terrorist are attacking Iraqi police stations, Iraqi restaurants where the police eat, and other Iraqi targets. The terrorists are creating their own enemy among their own people.

This means the Iraqi terrorists have no support among their own middle-east people.

The terrorists are becoming common crooks, like they are and they are getting more desperate, which is what the President's remarks were covering.

"The terrorists are creating their own enemy among their own people."

Hey Charles --

That's exaclty right, doofus. What part of "The terrorists have been taregting Shiite civilians because they are trying to foment full scale civil war" don't you understand? Oh right, the part about how the Iraqi population is made up of numerous different and antagonistic ethnic and religious groups.

The behavior of the terrorists isn't that of crooks or the desperate, it's like, you know, a strategy. A freakin deplorable one but nonetheless a strategy, one that won't go away just because the president says that more violence means we're winning.

And BQ --

Dean responded to all of Russert's questions directly and aggressively. He cited Dem plans for and positions on dealing with judges, Iraq, government ethics Social Security and real American values. What's your problem?

|Preznit Bush, yesterday on the insurgency in |Iraq:

|"I think they're being defeated. And that's why |they continue to fight."

|Ah, now I get it: The more they fight, the more |it's a sign that we're winning. A quick note: |this isn't a mistatement. This is what Bush |really thinks. Truly asstounding.

frameone:

when did the Japanese begin the 'kamikaze' campaign in WWII - when they were winning, or when we started winning?

QED

The Japanese begain full scale Kamakaze raids began in October of 1944 after the Japanese High Command realized there was no hope of winning the War. It was a last gasp act meant to demoralize the US. It didn't work then, It shouldn't work now.

More info: http://www.wtj.com/articles/kamikaze/