September 17, 2003

Left-wingers Against Howard Dean

Oliver Kamm is the latest to weigh in:

Howard Dean demonstrated his unfitness to be President several months ago with his judgement on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein:

"We've gotten rid of him. I suppose that's a good thing."

But I understate. A man who so grudgingly weighs the question of Saddam's departure is devoid of imagination, public-spiritedness and internationalist principle. He is not a reliable compass for humane sentiment let alone the highest office of state. Being a leftist myself, I am painfully aware that candidates of the Left do not get elected to executive office if they're perceived as untrustworthy on issues of security: McGovern, Foot, Lafontaine, Rau and the serial election loser Shimon Peres are all testament to the rule. Never mind what else he believes: if Dean is unmoved by the ousting of a tyrant who modelled his rule on Stalin and Hitler, he is untrustworthy to exercise authority in the public interest.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at September 17, 2003 11:44 PM
Comments

Michael,

Maybe I'm a sentimentalist, but as I look back, I remember a time when the left and right shared a common belief in the fundamental values of America. The differences were in the means to realize our values rather than the values themselves. And these differences ended at the water's edge.

I don't think this is the case any more. I think the left has lost confidence in America. It no longer believes in our values. They no longer believe in America as a strong independent and sovereign nation-state any more. They believe that America must subordinate itself to international organizations. They want us to be an open geographic region with no control over our borders.

Now Lincoln's house has divided against itself with two incompatible visions of America. Consequently, we no longer engage in politics. We are at the beginning of a cold civil war. One vision or another will be defeated.

I think the test is coming in the 2004 election. It will take generations to recover from a Democratic victory. A Demcoratic victory will mean that a president who aggressively pursues our national security overseas will be defeated. It will confirm Bin Laden's thesis that America is too weak and decadent to defend itself.

The best thing that can happen in 2004 is a decisive defeat for the Democrats. This will force them to reform and will ultimately lead to a stronger, loyal left. America needs a strong and loyal left as well as right. Conversely, a Democratic victory in 2004 is tantamount to unconditional surrender to the Islamists and the new socialist world order.

God help us if the left wins this cold civil war. I fear that our divided house may not stand.

Posted by: HA at September 18, 2003 04:24 AM

Dean's tepid "suppose" gave me the chills when I heard it and I haven't changed my mind since. He forever lost any chance that I would give him my vote. Similarly for the platitudinous "both sides have legitimate grievances" approach to the Israel-Palestinian issue. Such statements will come back to haunt him, despite his supporters' current enthusiasm. These equivocations in the face of real evils (a torture-based kleptocracy and death-loving suicide bombing culture) will be the kiss of death in the general electorate.

I'm less pessimistic that the Democrats can right themselves before 2004. At least Lieberman has put forth a reasonable alternative. I also think that many liberals are patriotic, care about the welfare of America, and shouldn't be lumped in with the tinfoil hat brigades. The civil cold war that HA talks about is overdrawn. The U.S. has survived many tumultous periods and poor Presidents, and will certainly continue to do so.

Still, the Islamofascist threat is real, and failing to address it, or waving your hand at it dismissively, as Dean does, disqualifies one for the Presidency. I think Michael got it right in a column he did some time ago, about liberals' frequent lack of interest in the world at large. Dean almost seems bored by the liberation of the Iraqis. So they're free, so what, let's talk about the prescription drug benefit! This kind of failure of the moral imagination and contempt for human suffering, and lack of joy at the Iraqis release from the same, marks Dean as a kind of narrow-minded, unimaginative moral midget. His humorlessness and elevated sense of self-rightousness are further red flags to me. Schoolmarm for President? No thanks.

Posted by: Daniel Calto at September 18, 2003 07:51 AM

Careful, Michael. This is almost an invitation for Laura in DC to start spamming your comments...

Posted by: George at September 18, 2003 08:04 AM

For a bit of perspective, it's worth remembering that our current President, whose current approach to foreign policy has enamoured him to many here, had during his campaign and during his first year of Presidency remarkably little interest or education in matters of foreign policy and national security.

Unfortunately for Democrats, Republicans are naturally assumed to be serious foreign policy realists sans evidence, simply by virtue of being Republican. Democrats, on the other hand, are only given a pass in this area when (like Lieberman) they sound like Republican candidates are imagined to.

Okay, so that's a bit of a frustration-inspired oversimplification, but that's how it seems sometimes.

Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at September 18, 2003 09:08 AM

It will take generations to recover from a Democratic victory.

I don't think so. I think the Democrats would grow up if they found themselves actually responsible for defending the country from terrorists. So much of what they are saying is knee-jerk oppositionism that totally contradicts their own value system.

What would happen, HA, with a Democratic victory, is that International ANSWER would turn its guns against the liberals. Because no one they approve of will ever be president.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 18, 2003 09:27 AM

Christopher is absolutely right: prior to 9/11, Bush didn't have much interest in foreign issues.

However, 9/11 woke him up, and made him realize that we are at war.

Most republicans have made the same realization, but for some reason, far fewer democrats have.

I'm willing to give Bush a pass for being asleep prior to 9/11, since just about everyone else was, and had been for decades.

However, I am not willing to give anyone still asleep after 9/11 a pass. Nor am I willing to tolerate the "if you wish really hard it will go away" attitude that a depressingly large number of democrats show towards terrorism.

Posted by: Fredrik Nyman at September 18, 2003 09:36 AM

Michael,

I think you're right that the democrats would grow up if they were returned to power, but at the very least, it would take another 9/11 before that happened.

That's an excessive price to pay for their remedial training.

Let's let them grow up before

Posted by: Fredrik Nyman at September 18, 2003 09:43 AM

"Unfortunately for Democrats, Republicans are naturally assumed to be serious foreign policy realists sans evidence, simply by virtue of being Republican."

Which (quoth the new Republican) is damned unfair. But, look on the bright side: that R after the names of people on my side is generally assumed to mean 'Racist'. At least you don't have to jump through hoops to prove that you've got no beef with various minorities...

But never mind about my problems: sorry about yours.

Moe

Posted by: Moe Lane at September 18, 2003 10:59 AM

Michael, you wrote "I think the Democrats would grow up if they found themselves actually responsible for defending the country from terrorists. So much of what they are saying is knee-jerk oppositionism that totally contradicts their own value system." Well, if Democrats were grown up they'd know that they are responsible for defending the country from terrorists. Elected to Federal, State or local office or ordinary citizen (Let's roll.) the responsibility is there. That so many elected Democrats are shirking that responsibility is an unfortunate given, as you recognize when you chide them for knee-jerk opposition. Your hope seems to be that they will stop shirking resposibilty if only given the reins of power. If you were driving and a passenger kept jerking the steering wheel and stabbing at the brakes shouting "Let me drive!" would you give him the wheel? With your family aboard? What if he said "No really if you give me the wheel I'll behave responsibly. It's just that I hate beeing second banana."? Michael, I know you recognize the gravity of this war. My first consideration when voting for President has always been, will always be "What kind of Commander-in-Chief will he make?" It's the nature of the office. As CIC any President has a freer hand than with any of his other duties. Pro-choice or pro-life in a President matters only as PR. Again, it's the nature of the office. Abortion is (or should have been) a legislative matter. Much of what a President does is in collaboration with the other branches. Much of what a CIC does is little effected by the other branches. Bush pre 9/11/01 doesn't matter now. He's a proven success in the war against terrorists. He'll get my vote. It's the wrong time to argue about universal health-care.

Posted by: Stephen Meyer at September 18, 2003 11:19 AM

Yes, yes, anyone who does not share your particular approach to how to defend us against terrorism (i.e. invade Iraq) is not interested in doing so.

I believe, deep in my heart, that President Bush wishes to defend the American nation from terrorist attacks. He has no desire in any way, shape, or form for the US to suffer attacks. I also believe he's doing a mind-bogglingly awful job and prioritizing badly. There is a difference.

From Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq, and this is what you said in April. "We've gotten rid of [Saddam Hussein], and I suppose that's a good thing."

"Suppose"?

DR. DEAN: Here's the problem. We don't know whether in the long run the Iraqi people are better off, and the most important thing is we don't know whether we're better off. This president told us that we were going to go into Iraq because they might have--they had atomic weapons. That turned out not to be so. The secretary of Defense told us that he knew where there were weapons of mass destruction around Tikrit and around Baghdad. We've been in control of Iraq for 50 days. We haven't been able to find any such thing.

...

MR. RUSSERT: But the Iraqi people are not better off without Saddam Hussein?

DR. DEAN: I think right now they are. Here's the problem. If we can't get our act together in Iraq, and if we can't build Iraq into a democracy, then the alternative is chaos or a fundamentalist regime. That is certainly not a safer situation for the United States of America. And we don't know for sure if it is or not. Saddam Hussein is a dreadful human being. He's a mass murderer. I think it's terrific that he's gone. But the fact is, that in the long term, we went into Iraq for reasons the president of the United States still has not made clear. And because of that, we really don't know what the outcome is going to be.

I hope this clarifies the governor's position more than an off-the-cuff comment does.

Posted by: Kimmitt at September 18, 2003 02:24 PM

Howard Dean said: Saddam Hussein is a dreadful human being. He's a mass murderer. I think it's terrific that he's gone.

Okay, that really is much better. I'm glad you sent the link, Kimmitt.

But, he also said: This president told us that we were going to go into Iraq because they might have--they had atomic weapons.

That's complete and utter bullshit.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 18, 2003 02:29 PM

Obvious explanation:

Bush did say that Iraq might have nuclear weapons (though not in those exact words) in the SOTU, and Dean tripped over his sentence.

Legalistic explanation:

Iraq has tried in the past to construct "dirty bombs," which most certainly are atomic weapons, and the Bush Administration listed them as part of Iraq's possible/probable arsenal, along with the rest of the WMDs.

Posted by: Kimmitt at September 18, 2003 03:44 PM

KIMMET LIED!!!

He quoted an obvious distortion or misrepresentation by Howard Dean.

Posted by: d-rod at September 18, 2003 03:54 PM

Dirty bombs are not atomic weapons. They are radiological weapons. The difference is incredible.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 18, 2003 03:56 PM

A valid point, but we're pretty far into semantics at that point. I consider myself a reasonably well-educated person, and I wouldn't note the difference until it was pointed out to me.

The obvious explanation is the more useful one anyway.

Posted by: Kimmitt at September 18, 2003 04:56 PM

Did Dean trip over his sentence when he said "Bush should have focused his energies on building democracy in the Middle East instead of toppling Saddam"? What did he mean by that exactly?

Posted by: d-rod at September 18, 2003 05:57 PM

Perhaps he meant we could work to build Democracy with Saddam still in power, as the French argued so cogently in the build-up to the war. Who cares about democracy anyway when you can skim the fat off of the TotalFinaElf oil-for-palaces scheme? A little lip service in the general direction of democracy is fine.

For me, Dean's "correction" of his "suppose" quote to Russert, long after he initially said it, is unconvincing, and done strictly for political survival. Off-the-cuff remarks can be far more revealing of character than prepared statements. And what does it mean to say that "We don't know in the long run whether the Iraqi people are better off?" That's liek saying in the long run, I don't know if the Germans are better off without Hitler or not, because his demise caused instability

Posted by: Daniel Calto at September 18, 2003 06:34 PM

Michael,

I think the Democrats would grow up if they found themselves actually responsible for defending the country from terrorists.

Do you see any evidence of this? Lieberman has been the only adult in the primary and he has collapsed out of contention. The adults in the party who voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq are tripping over themselves to renounce their votes.

What would happen, HA, with a Democratic victory, is that International ANSWER would turn its guns against the liberals.

The problem is the rot on the left extends far deeper than ANSWER. As bad as the Democrats have become, at least they're not Stalinists. Yet the mentality of Chomsky and Zinn has seeped into the Democratic brain trust in universities, the media, hollywood, MoveOn, the ACLU, the NEA, etc. These are the groups Dean is pandering too and they aren't marginal Democratic constintuencies.

The lesson of a Democratic victory will be that the way to win the Democratic primary is to pander to the most anti-American elements of the party. Further, this doesn't make you unelectable in the general election. And finally, it is politcal suicide to use the military against our nation's enemies unless you define our enemies in the narrowest of terms.

Posted by: HA at September 18, 2003 06:59 PM

It's a lot like saying, "We don't know whether or not the Russians are better off with the Tsar gone," in 1917, to my mind. What comes after matters.

As for the "democracy in the Middle East" line, I feel quite confident that he referred to one conventional wisdom of the day, which was that we needed to get Afghanistan a little more together and try to get the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a little less awful (and continue to push for liberalization in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere), rather than concentrate those energies on taking Iraq.

I am sorry that you find the Governor's clarfication unconvincing; he has a habit of saying something which he does not really mean, then having to recant it later. I suppose I am quite forgiving of this fault because I share it. I am also sorry that you feel as though the front-runner for the Democratic nomination is or was a genuine supporter of the Saddam regime. That would not be a happy place to be.

Posted by: Kimmitt at September 18, 2003 07:00 PM

"We don't know whether or not the Russians are better off with the Tsar gone," in 1917, to my mind.

To my mind it's like saying "We don't know if the Eastern Europeans are better off now that the Soviets are gone."

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 18, 2003 07:15 PM

Finally, nearly 15 years after the end of the Cold War, two separate visions of foreign policy are emerging. The Democrats overwhelmingly are internationalists. They believe the highest value is diplomacy and our standing viz a viz the other nations of the world. The Republicans by and large believe that the United States must project itself i a muscular manner and strongly asserts its interests and that allies are those who agree with our view of the world. Democrats are enamoured of international institutions, Republicans mistrust them. Most importantly, Republicans have come to believe that we are in an epic world wide struggle in which we must prevail. Democrats don't recognize that we are in a titanic struggle that must be one at all costs. They cling to legalisms and the desire for good relations with our old allies. The Democrats have become conservative, even reactionary. The Republicans have become bold and innovative. If Bush is not re-elected then the war on terror is over. It is clear now. The dems. will no longer be able to even pretend to be interested in fighting and winning this war. This is the most important election of our entire lives. Regardless of your view of Bush personally or his policies or mistakes he may have made, recognize that his defeat is a victory for the Islamo-fascists. It is that stark. We must do all we can to ensure the election of a candidate who understands what is at stake here.

Posted by: Doug at September 18, 2003 08:21 PM

Michael:

Saddam was homegrown, and the Eastern European nations were dominated by foreign powers. It makes a difference.

Posted by: Kimmitt at September 18, 2003 08:48 PM

Saddam was homegrown, and the Eastern European nations were dominated by foreign powers. It makes a difference.

Hitler was homegrown, too. So what? Really, so what? Why does that make a difference? The Kurds are supposed to care that Saddam wasn't Russian? His weapons were Russian, and so was his police state system.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 18, 2003 10:47 PM

Kimmitt,

Dean's comment:

This president told us that we were going to go into Iraq because they might have--they had atomic weapons.

Kimmitt's explanation:

Dean tripped over his sentence.

This might be a plausible explanation if not for the larger campaign of lies that the Democrats have waged against Bush. They lie about what he said and say that since he said it, he is a liar.

The Democrats lie when they say Bush said Saddam was an "imminent" threat. Rather, the Bush argument was that Saddam was a POTENTIAL threat.

The Democrats lie whey they say Bush said Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush never said that. He did say Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda which is a nearly incontrovertable fact.

The Democrats lied about what Bush said in the State of the Union.

The Democrats lie when they say that our enemy is limited to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

There is a pattern here that indicates a larger Democratic strategy of smearing the President regardless of the truth, and regardless of the damage it does to country. Considered in that context, Dean's statement is part of a pattern to lie to the American people in order to undermine the president at a time of war. The Democratic lies are used as propoganda by our enemies. Their lies are getting our troops killed. They know this and yet they persist.

If the Democratic smear campaign achieves electoral victory, this country is screwed. You can bet that Kim Il-Sung, the Iranian mullahs, Bashar Assad, Hezbollah, Qadaffi, Arafat, the
Saudis and all the rest will breath a sigh of relief if Bush loses. This will be a green light that they can wage a terror war against America with impunity.

Like I said. It will take generations to recover from a Dean victory in 2004. This election is the most important to our nation since 1864. It is essential that Bush win regardless of what you think of his other policies.

Posted by: HA at September 19, 2003 02:57 AM

I am completely unimpressed that Dean managed to give a semicoherent answer to Russert on the "supposed" remark. That answer was coached and programmed. The intial "supposed" remark was not, and it is the one that is more revealing of the true Dean. The notion that he doesn't "mean" his spontaneous outbursts, but that his carefully coached and programmed "clarifications" show the true Dean, is ludicrous.

Posted by: R C Dean at September 19, 2003 04:23 AM

he has a habit of saying something which he does not really mean, then having to recant it later.

This is hardly a reassuring statement, Kimmitt. I seriously, seriously doubt that you would give Bush, or even the other Democratic candidates, this kind of a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at September 19, 2003 08:46 AM

Kimmitt:

I do not -- repeat do not -- believe that Dean is a "genuine supporter" of the Saddam regime. That would be tin foil country. I believe Dean when he says he thinks Saddam is a dreadful human being. Who wouldn't agree with this proposition anyway?

What I do believe about Dean is that he doesn't really give a damn about Iraq or Iraqis, and that he's rather cynically burnished his anti-war credentials to rise to the top of the heap with Democratic voters, who by and large opposed the war. Since he realizes that the "suppose" quote makes him potentially unelectable, he's backing down to preserve himself as a viable candidate politically. This doesn't make him a monster, but it's hardly a profile in courage.

I don't believe in unilateralist foreign policy, and think Bush mishandled the diplomatic run-up to the war. The Democrats are constantly harping on the need for an internationalist foreign policy. But internationalism doesn't consist in diplomatic pas-de-deux in the deeply flawed United Nations, or playing footsie with the corrupt and cynical Chirac and Villepin. Real internationalism, as Democrats and Republicans have occasionally practiced in the past, means being engaged by what happens in other countries, and what happens to their citizens, and not only to American citizens. This is where Dean seems woefully deficient to me, in his seeming sheer indifference to the liberation of the Iraqis.

This is a real betrayal of genuine internationalism and reveals someone of fundamentally limited vision who isn't fit to be President.

I simply cannot forgive such indifference in the face of the fall of Saddam, an event which anyone, conservative or liberal, for or against the war, could justly celebrate. What if Bush had said he "supposed" the release of Nelson Mandela from 25 years in prison under the brutal apartheid regime was "a good thing." Would Democrats give him a pass? I think not, and such a remark would justifiably taint him going forward.

Interesting to note that Kerry is closing some of the gap with Dean in New Hampshire. Flavor of the month? We'll see.

Posted by: Daniel Calto at September 19, 2003 09:11 AM

I seriously, seriously doubt that you would give Bush, or even the other Democratic candidates, this kind of a get-out-of-jail-free card.

I have, on multiple occasions. For example:

One incorrect quote from this article, ("We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in") was obviously a misstatement, not a deliberate attempt to deceive the American public.

Posted by: Kimmitt at September 19, 2003 12:43 PM

Ok, but I think you're nuts for doing so. I remember when Bush made that statement, and the fact that he could be so blatantly ignorant of some very pertinent (and easy-to-understand) facts of the situation I found unforgivable.

Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at September 19, 2003 12:53 PM

Again, the President says a lot of things at a lot of times; if I were him, I'd be cleaning up messes every week or two. There are lots of reasons to dislike President Bush. The occasional slip of the tongue or brain fart is not among them.

Now, that "Bring it on" crap . . . that's unforgivable.

Posted by: Kimmitt at September 19, 2003 03:47 PM

Michael,

Victor Davis Hanson must have been reading my posts here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson091903.asp

I humbly admit that he puts things more eloquently than I do.

Posted by: HA at September 19, 2003 05:58 PM

A money quote on atomic weapons. It's Cheney, not the President, but Cheney is presumably speaking for the Administration:

"And we believe that he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. El Baradei frankly is wrong."

Posted by: Kimmitt at September 19, 2003 08:42 PM

I apologize for my previously confusing statement. Gov. Dean's statement stands as spoken.

Posted by: Kimmitt at September 19, 2003 08:43 PM

Kimmitt,

Gov. Dean's statement stands as spoken

That's right. It stands as part of a pattern in the "vast" left-wing Democratic smear campaign against the president in a time of war.

Notice how Dean corrected himself in the statement:

"...might have--they had atomic weapons..."

This is no accident. He started with "might have" and switched to "had" in mid-sentence when he realized he had departed from the script. The script is to distort what Bush says and use the distortion as the basis for accusing Bush of lying and misleading us. This is a deliberate, calculated, designed, planned, organized and coordinated campaign of lies by the Democrats.

The Democrats are a complete treasonous disgrace. There are plenty of reasons to attack Bush outside of the war policy. None of the traditional Democratic issues are even discussed any more. Yet the primary has been single-mindedly devoted to undermining Bush's war policy. Why is that? Because the left of the party is a fifth-column.

The Democrats aren't attacking Bush's war policy because it is failing. The Democrats are attacking Bush's war policy because it is succeeding.

The one thing the fifth-column left can't allow is for Bush to succeed in the war on terror. If Bush is successful, it will doom their efforts to subordinate our national sovereignty to international organizations. It will prove that an independent, sovereign nation-state can expand freedom. It will prove that a transnational socialist organization like the UN is a barrier to freedom.

It is more important to the elite brain-trust of the party to undermine the war on terror than to win the general election. How else can you explain a primary campaign in which the dominant issues have been shaped to elevate Dean when he polls lower against Bush than any of the the other credible candidates?

Do I believe that rank-and-file Democrats think this way? No. But the elite activists in academia, the media and Hollywood do. I don't think rank-and-file democrats have any idea how their party loyalty is being manipulated by the transnational, socialist brain-trust of the party.

And I'm not talking about ANSWER style Stalinists either. I'm talking about socialists who see Oprah-censoring Sweden as a model to emulate. I'm talking about people who are probably well-intentioned, but who look at American history and conclude that the American model of liberal-capitalism is fundamentally flawed. I'm talking about people who believe the nation-state is obsolete and a barrier to progress.

Groups like ANSWER aren't a real threat. They are transparently evil and are easily recognized for what they are. Groups like MoveOn are a real threat precisely because they aren't evil. They are well-intentioned people who completely fail to understand the insidious, corrupting, slippery-slope nature of socialism.

I'm sure you'll disgenuously scoff at this. But before you do, be prepared to explain why so many Democrats said we can't attack Iraq without UN approval. Be prepared to explain how anybody who believes in American national sovereignty can give France, China and Russia veto power over our security. Be prepared to explain the anti-capitalist marxist dogma coming from the left that you yourself have used.

Posted by: HA at September 20, 2003 04:35 AM

You are, as usual, completely wrong regarding Democratic attitudes toward the President on this race. Please allow me to quote from a series of announcement speeches:

Dean:

What they know is that somehow 7 trillion dollars of our country's wealth disappeared. Nearly 1 in 10 retired people have had to return to the workforce because they have lost their pensions. Young people are returning to live at home after graduating because they cannot find work.

Edwards:

We deserve a President who is close to our people, not the lobbyists. Who listens to our people because he knows them, he works for them. A president who hears them even when they cannot speak because they've lost their jobs, because they're caring for a child, or just because the simple struggle to make ends meet leaves them no time for anything else.

Kerry:

On energy and the environment, George Bush seeks to undo the progress of 30 years under presidents of both parties. His Clean Skies initiative actually means dirtier air, his Healthy Forests proposal actually means cutting down trees. He proposed to let his oil industry friends drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. I led and won the fight to stop him.

...and the list goes on and on. The Democratic field has been relentless in its criticism of Bush's "miserable failures" in every sector of his Presidency.

Posted by: Kimmitt at September 20, 2003 09:57 AM

Kimmitt,

That's just boiler-plate and you know it. The Democratic primary has been dominated by Iraq. The red-meat for the fifth-column which has propelled Dean is opposition to Bush's policy on the war.

The Democrats who soberly authorized the use of force last year turned into raving drunks when Dean showed up at the AA meeting with his bottle of Jack.

Posted by: HA at September 21, 2003 03:32 AM

Lots of wealth disappeared because of WWII. Does that mean the allies shoudn't have fought it? Don't Democrats believe anymore that some sacrifice is required in providing collective security?

Posted by: d-rod at September 21, 2003 08:27 AM

Am I supposed to run frightened from my considered positions because a Republican has once again questioned the patriotism of anyone who holds a position with which he disagrees? It's a tired, sad, old chestnut, the sort of thing which corrodes discourse in this country.

Posted by: Kimmitt at September 21, 2003 11:18 PM

Kimmitt,

Dean on 9/29/02:

But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml

Dean on 6/22/03:

This president told us that we were going to go into Iraq because they might have--they had atomic weapons.

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000009133&keyword=&phrase=&contain=

Dean acknowledges that Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat. What happened in those 9 months? Dean became the front-runner and started playing by the script. The script is to wage a smear campagin against Bush in a time of war. Too bad if the smear campaign undermines the war effort. Its much more important for Democrats to have power.

BTW, how does it feel to have the Clintons come in at the last minute and cut your boy Dean off at the knees?

Posted by: HA at September 22, 2003 03:04 AM

What happened in those 9 months?

Cheney lied on Meet the Press. I know it's difficult to keep track of the Bush Administration's lies -- sheer quantity overwhelms the senses -- but I did post the exact quote just a short distance up this page.

BTW, how does it feel to have the Clintons come in at the last minute and cut your boy Dean off at the knees?

It's so cute watching Republicans pretend they know what a democratic primary process looks like. We don't annoint our leaders, friend; they campaign and prove themselves to us. Unlike in your Party, the previous President doesn't get to pick who his successor is -- we have this process where we actually have discussion and debate. Clark will stand or fall on his own merits.

Posted by: Kimmitt at September 22, 2003 03:56 AM

As someone who has disagreed strenuously with Kimmitt in the past, and looks forward to continuing to do so in the future, I wanted to give him a tip of the hat. Kimmitt at least reads what other people say, agrees or disagrees with them, and asserts his own arguments and counterarguments. Given the level of vitriol and ad hominem arguments seen in the blogosphere and elsewhere these days, this is a welcome exception.

Posted by: Daniel Calto at September 22, 2003 06:56 AM

Okay, now I feel bad for losing my temper in the previous post. Thank you very much for the compliment; you made my morning.

Posted by: Kimmitt at September 22, 2003 12:29 PM



Testimonials

"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

"Terrific"
Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere


Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com


News Feeds




toysforiraq.gif



Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button

totten_button.jpg


Tip Jar





Essays

Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn