OK, maybe he IS serious, but I find him laughable. He panders better than Clinton. Consider, for example, his "position" on Iraq:
First, Mr. Dean agreed with President Bush that Saddam needed to be disarmed but never explained how to verifiably achieve that goal without threatening force. In other words, Mr. Dean did not really support containment. He did not say we could live with the status quo. He too wanted to ensure that Saddam complied with U.N. demands, yet offered no practical sticks -- or carrots -- to accomplish that objective.
For example, in a major foreign policy address at Drake University on Feb. 17 this year, Gov. Dean stated that "Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate, this is a given." But in the same speech he described a military operation to overthrow Saddam as "the wrong war at the wrong time." Just how one could have expected Saddam to verifiably disarm in the face of such rhetoric is unclear. The former governor did not assert that Saddam already was effectively disarmed or that we could live with the status quo. Nor did he argue that inspections should be given more time before resorting to war. Rather, he categorically opposed the threat of force even as he insisted that the U.S. did need to ensure Saddam's disarmament. This position does not hold water.
But enough about the past. Mr. Dean's second main problem is even more serious because it concerns what to do about Iraq now. Here he is trying to have it both ways. He insists at times that we need to remain in Iraq and succeed. Then he changes tune abruptly, advocating U.S. troop withdrawals and opposing further expenditures of American money to complete the job there. The first position is clearly designed to appeal to the left-leaning part of the Democratic base, the second to the general electorate. Mr. Dean is making both arguments simultaneously, and they are completely contradictory.
Consider the record. On Sept. 26 this year, in a statement calling for the resignations of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Mr. Dean stated that "we are in Iraq now, and we cannot afford to fail." On Oct. 9, in the Democratic debate in Phoenix, he said, "Now that we're there, we can't pull out responsibly." In these comments, Mr. Dean was realistically recognizing the strategic importance of succeeding in Iraq even if he had himself opposed getting involved there. He was also recognizing the political need to appeal to the mainstream American voter who knows we cannot cut and run in this crucial part of the world.
But there is another side to Mr. Dean -- the one who must tap into the anger of the Democratic left against all things Bush and against the war in Iraq in particular. In the Sept. 4 debate in Albuquerque, N.M., for example, Mr. Dean stated: "We need more troops. They're going to be foreign troops, as they should have been in the first place, not American troops. Ours need to come home." This was nothing short of a prescription for ending the mission and declaring failure.
Worst of all is the new Dean television ad in Iowa. In that spot, he chastises Dick Gephardt for supporting President Bush's Iraq policy, and then concludes, "I opposed the war in Iraq. And I'm against spending another $87 billion there." Mr. Dean does not say he opposed the specifics of the administration's supplemental appropriation, which would be a partially defensible position held by several other Democratic candidates. Rather, he categorically opposes an expense of that magnitude in ads running right now in the Hawkeye State. Unfortunately for the country and for the soundness of Mr. Dean's argument, there is no way to stabilize Iraq and protect U.S. security interests in the region without an expenditure in that ballpark.
online.wsj.com
As for your statement that "Dean looks like the kind of guy who'll meet you face on in an ally and try to kick your ass", is a guy with anger management issues really the kind of guy you want as president? Oh, and is that what you call an "informed", "according to the issues" basis for voting?
You and AS should get together - you're both so enthralled with the machismo of your candidates. Frankly, I think most Americans prefer a president with a consistent vision, not pandering, convoluted "positions" that change by the day (sometimes mid-sentence), and a macho image. |
