A thought from Helen Thomas: We need Democrats to speak out on the war.

[madfloridian]

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5359

I have it in my files, but will link to the Dean site because I can't find the link.

SNIP..."WASHINGTON -- The Democratic presidential aspirants have been pussyfooting around the Iraq question, wanting to have it both ways on whether to support President Bush's rush-to-war.

The time has come for them to show some backbone. They should declare their position clearly and point to peaceful options that the president has no time for. Speaking of clarity, I salute Bush for his laser-focused campaign against Saddam Hussein, even if he ignores facts and history. Also getting strong marks for clarity would be Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who is just as hawkish as Bush.

It's disappointing that the Democrats don't have a leading candidate to challenge that point of view with the force of moral clarity. Most of the leading candidates are straddling the fence, reluctant to take a firm stand one way or another. These wafflers should get C-minus grades when voters are passing out grades for leadership.

At a time when the Democrats need giants to challenge the incumbent president, they are surrounded by "me too" candidates....."

[LWolf]

1. Here's the link:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/109643_thomas23.shtml

Kucinich, 56, notes that Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's book, "Bush At War," depicts the administration as so eager to attack Iraq that on Sept. 12, 2001, when the nation was in a state of shock after the terrorist attacks the day before, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was already urging war against Iraq.

"Why shouldn't we go against Iraq, not just al-Qaida," Rumsfeld is quoted as saying. He was echoing his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, who has had Iraq on his target list since 1991 when he unsuccessfully tried to sell it to the first President Bush.

Rumsfeld was "raising the possibility that they could take advantage of the opportunity offered by the terrorist attacks to go after Saddam immediately," Woodward wrote.

There was no evidence then of any link between Iraq and al-Qaida. And try as they might, and despite lots of huffing and puffing, Bush administration officials haven't produced any evidence since.

For reasons that I and many other people don't understand, Bush has been angling to attack Iraq for years. His Democratic challengers should demand to know why.

Glad to see that she almost recognizes, towards the end of the article, that a certain democratic challenger has been doing so since the beginning. Too bad she forgot to mention that Dennis Kucinich has been challenging George W. Bush, unequivocally, since he took the oath of office.