Part 1 of the Dean interview on Leno....transcript.

[madfloridian]

http://howardempowered.blogspot.com/2005/12/deans-leno-interview-part-1.html

A snip of the first part.

Leno: Let’s talk about some of the issues. Bush’s speech today, what did you think?

Dean: Part of my job is I’m supposed to be tactful now, and it doesn’t come easy.

Leno: Oh no—forget that!

Dean: I thought it was his usual nonsense and repetetive…drivel that we’ve heard for the last 4 1/2 years.

Leno: Well, that’s tactful. (Yep, cause we know there’s a less tactful word than drivel that would have fit perfectly at the end of that sentence!)

Dean: He didn’t say anything new. He’s defending a strategy that was built on things that weren’t true, and of course we’re in trouble. And I think “staying the course” is not a strategy, especially when you didn’t tell the truth to get us there in the first place.

Leno: Well, how about Joe Lieberman, a fellow Democrat—

Dean: Now I really have to be tactful!

Leno: He’s been there a few times to Iraq, and he more or less agrees with the President.

Dean: Everybody gets to march to their own drummer in this party. What we need to do is have a real plan for strategic redeployment. We need not to have 150,000 troops that are being attacked every single day in Iraq. We shouldn’t have been there in the first place, and the fact is we’ve made a big mess over there. We’ve created more of a danger than there was in the first place, and probably one of the results is that we did something that Iran couldn’t do, we helped them win their objectives in the Iran-Iraq war. So, we’re in a lot of trouble in Iraq, and John Murtha’s right, we ought not to be hurting more Americans, and having more American wounded kids come home. (Loud applause)

Leno: So what would your plan be?

Dean: I think withdrawing immediately is not the right thing to do, but there is a plan that was authored oddly enough by a guy who worked in the Reagan defense department by the name of Lawrence Korb.(Applause at the mention of a republican plan)
Where we would withdraw the National Guard troops over 2006, and even Joe Lieberman voted for 2006 being the year of transition there. We would withdraw the Guard troops, move 20,000 troops to Afghanistan, where they are needed, keep a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq, because we are going to have to deal with the terrorist threat that Bush created by going in there in the first place. And then the rest come home over the period of 2006 after this election. That gives us a redeployment opportunity, it doesn’t show weakness, and it does show the ability to continue to deal with the problems in Iraq without having our guys be the targets."

[Crazy Guggenheim]

1. YYYYYEEEEEAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!! I miss him so much!

[lildreamer316]

2. Thanks

Good to see him prepared with a plan.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

3. And they try to say he's weak on national security!!

:nuke:

[wisteria]

4. Dean sounded great, but the plan sucks IMO.

Where are we going to put these redeployed troops in the ME. We are not exactly welcome in most areas. Add to this, the fact that anywhere we go we will attract terrorists and you tell me what country is going to be welcoming our troops with open arms? Kerry's plan is best, and its a shame it's being ignored. I realize this isn't Dean's fault.

[thefloyd]

5. Dean does not mess around

The whole idea America will look weak if troops withdrawal is nonsense.
America took over Iraq in such a short amount of time no one on earth would believe redeployment shows weakness. Also Rummy did not put nearly enough troops in Iraq so America was not at full force. Obviously RNC shoring up the base because lord knows chicken-hawks hat looking weak