Easy. Talk about how much it costs, how we won't know till 10 years out if we've won or not, and how the Bush administration is giving the contracts out to their buddies.
90210 | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 11:28 am | #

Dean has already posted a serious seven-point plan for multilateral reconstruction at DeanforAmerica.com. Let's not forget that while support for the war was high, support for a multilateral approach to the post-war occupation and rebuilding process is also high.

Let's not also forget that the economy and not the war is likely to be the main issue on voter's minds by the time 2004 rolls around.
Left Leaner | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 11:36 am | #

As long as Governor Dean remains consistent in his approach, that will go a long way.

Let's not forget that the current occupant of the White House said during the 2000 Presidential Campaign that he is opposed to the US Military becoming involved in "nation building". Just one more broken GOP promise.

Left Leaner is correct. By 2004, Americans will become more focused on the economy.
JobyTodd | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 11:41 am | #

Yeah...winning the war was was never in doubt. Winning the peace could be another story entirely. Still making predictions at this point is futile.

Personally, I think the response should be that he didn't think it was a good idea to go into Iraq without the support and backing of the world community. That support was within our grasp and would have been achievable if we hadn't botched the dimplomacy so badly.

Futhermore, we've set a dangerous precedent of preemption that could make life extremely difficult for us down the road if any other country (China or Turkey for example) thinks it can use the "Bush doctrine" to take out a potential threat.

I think he should also hammer the point that the American public has been misled all along about the rationale for war. First it was a a link to al Quaeda which was a fantasy, then it was because of a nuclear program that turned out to be a fraud, then it was about weapons of mass distruction that we haven't found, and now that it's over it it's about liberating the Iraqi people.
What gives? You can't trust this administration to play it straight with the American people.

I also think Dean should stick to his guns and have this be another example of taking positions that may or may not get him votes but, in his best judgment are correct. I think that will resonate with voters the way it has on so many other issues.

Finally, the new talking point should continue to be: Why are we spending so much rebuilding Iraq when America is struggling so badly right now. Shouldn't we have first dibs on cash for our health care, food for the poor and education?
Paul | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 11:47 am | #

Governor Dean says what he means and he means what he says. Saddam was a bad guy, and the world is a better place now that he's gone, but the fact of the matter is that we waged an unprecedented pre-emptive war that will have consequences for our foreign policy (and our national security) far into the future. And some of those consequences will not be good ones. Leadership means taking a principled stand and doing the hard thing even when you could get away with doing the easy thing.

This is an aside, but I think Governor Dean has shown a lot of class by not using the story of his brother for political gain during the campaign. That's the kind of tailor-made personal story that other candidates would probably exploit, but Dean is above that, and I respect him even more because of it.
Left Leaner | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 11:48 am | #

"Had we followed their approach, we would be bogged down in a festering diplomatic and human rights quagmire that could easily have endured for another decade."

We'll be in Iraq for another decade, and I don't have high hopes for human rights there, based on Afghanistan. Our diplomatic relations are festering now because of Bush. What Sullivan described is happening now, because of Bush, and could have been avoided or mitigated with better leadership.
90210 | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 12:19 pm | #

Re: the comments about why America went to Iraq. The only reason that matters is that war is always about profit and power. The intention is to prevent any terrorists from attacking the U.S. again. This campaign does all things for all people, not matter which premise you believe. We will install a CIA-approved govt. The retired U.S. general is in Southern Iraq with 700 expatriates who want to rule Iraq.
jennifer Curry | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 12:29 pm | #

Dean's new mantra should be "fiscal responsibility." Dean should remain consistent and put the war issue as the first talking point (so he's not accused of ducking), when he delivers the message.

Bombing third world nations does not make us stronger, it makes us a bully - and it bankrupts our children. My first act as president is to get our fiscal house in order, and that means a shared approach to rebuilding Iraq. Not only that, but it means shared approaches to foreign policy in the future.

In the wake of our spectacular military success, I say "it was never in doubt" - and I ask President Bush: "What were you so afraid of to begin with?"

Attacking Iraq is the equivalent of the NFL playing in a pee wee league. It proves that the inspections would have worked, and that containment would have worked - with less expense and loss of life to our American soldiers. To quote a great American "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself." In this case, fear won over the Bush Administration.
Christopher Curtis | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 12:31 pm | #

... and the Bush administration is using that fear to saddle our kids with debt.
Christopher Curtis | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 12:33 pm | #

Aziz:

I have to disagree strongly with something said in this post... "This also is a mistake, because it plays into the view of Democrats as obsessed with minor details and Republicans as the ones with the Big Vision. That was the route to losing the midterms in 2002. "

That's what the GOP WANTS you to believe was the reason for the 2002 defeats. Reality, on the other hand, was the dems effectively giving the finger to their constituents and voting with the president, yet again, on something of which they did not approve. Voter turnout wasn't at record lows because the democrats got bogged with minor details. Voter turnout was at record lows because people who put their heart and souls into trying to stop the president from getting a blank check on war were betrayed by the very same people (Kerry, Feinstein) who had been doing the talk show circuit all week saying why we SHOULDN'T have that resolution.

The only dem I voted for was Gray Davis and only b/c Bill Simon was just too evil to be considered. Other than Gray, I voted 3rd party and I voted for the republican over Henry Waxman because of his pro-war vote, after I was told by his office that he would NEVER support the resolution w/o a UN requirement.

The dems lost in 2002 because of capitulation and nothing more.
Scott K | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 12:56 pm | #

Dean should not be worried about this outcome. There was a 90% chance he expected just the sort of day that yesterday was: a great celebration of freedom in a land long ruled by the iron fist of an evil dictator that people everywhere should be proud of. However, Dean is still 100% correct in assailing the logic of and diplomatic procedure leading up to the war, and he has no backtracking to do or apologies to make to anyone.

What I do hope he and his advisers are now huddling over is how to formulate policy about Iraq, and the Middle East as a whole, in a forward-thinking way that is more impressive than the other candidates and more importantly, Bush himself. The problem of Iraq is now in the lap of America and isn't going away. There is still a very strong possibility that Iraq will erupt into chaos and/or civil War (today's death of Abdul Majid Al-Khoei is an ominous and *very* early sign of this) and in such a tragic case, Dean would be largely vindicated. Hoping this does not happen, as the economy falters, Bush will trumpet his and the Republicans' apparent foreign policy upper hand on the Democrats (Repubs will most likely claim only they can lead Iraq to peace with their experience leading up to the election.) Dean must present sharper and more far-thinking Middle East policy to counter what is one of the small few issues Republicans may enjoy an advantage on. There is little doubt that he can, and I do believe he will.

A last point about the numerical costs of war. Yes, there is no question this operation and the future peacekeeping will unfortunately require billions of dollars from the American people. Yet I believe it would be a huge mistake to attach the costs to the many jubilant Iraqis we saw on TV yesterday. The 70% who agreed this was a war for the right reasons will say forever this 3-week period was a small cost to pay to answer the question "At what price, freedom?" The tack of attacking Bush for spending too much on the war itself (not the peacekeeping after) would not be smart. What I'm sure Dean will harp on is the incongruity of beginning an extremely expensive operation while similarly giving massive tax cuts to the rich few, none of whom were fighting this war. Dean will gain many a convert on this point.
Scott G. Medford, MA | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 1:06 pm | #

I think "suppose" is a pretty good word. If anyone had reservations about the application of the thug Bush preemptive doctrine, and those reservations were dispelled merely by the reality that the biggest gorilla in the history of humanity could blow away a pathetic army such as Saddam's, then the values and principles behind them were worth no more than the values and principles inherent in rooting for a professional football team - maybe less. People don't die by the thousdands in football games. This commentary is uncharacteristically vapid. You should be ashamed to have even thought it, much less publish it.

The "suppose" reflects the concern for the costs to achieve the objective. Specifically, in my view, these are military and civilian lives, billions of dollars that could have been spent on ANYTHING else, loss of American prestige and future international influence (unless you count putting a gun to someone's head) as a consequence of Bush's utter abandonment of diplomacy, increased risk to Americans within our own borders as apprisals commence and then continue for decades, and the likelihood that the Bush doctrine will be applied within the next two (six?) years in some other part of the world while the American electorate piles into bars once again to quaffe cold ones, watch and cheer the nifty war images, and a weak-willed Congress mumbles to itself.

"Suppose"? Yeah...I suppose.
Lance Bukoff | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 1:25 pm | #

I agree that the "I suppose that's a good thing" comment was a bit uncharacteristically weak. Otherwise, he did just fine. As was pointed out in a comment above, Peter Sullivan's concerned about diplomatic and human rights quagmires? Then he wants Howard Dean as his President, too, because Howard Dean understands diplomacy. George Bush has, rather than dealing with an existing quagmire, actually managed to spread it from one country to hundreds. Now, instead of a few enemies and many friends, we have more enemies, many distrustful acquaintances, and few friends. It takes more than a superpower to deal with that, it takes trustworthy and strong leadership. Howard Dean has proven he can provide that, the other candidates have proven they're incapable. IMO.
Ray Minchew | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 1:29 pm | #

Someone needs to remind Mr. Sullivan that this war isn't over, and it won't be over, until Iraq is a democracy and we can pull the troops out. There are a lot of bad things that can happen between now and then. With news of looting, suicide bombers, snipers, civilian casualties, and assassinations it's starting to look like Palestine (which seems to be the definition of a human rights quagmire which has endured for decades). We've got a long way to go in Iraq.
Phil | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 1:45 pm | #

Don't talk about costs. What we need to be doing is talking about the danger that a post-Saddam Iraq faces. We need to make sure that our diplomacy and international relations skills go better now that we have to keep both Afghanistan and Iraq from imploding into strife. That's going to require a bigger commitment from the U.S. Perhaps Graham and Dean need to work together on this one. Graham has the foreign policy gravitas. They can strike out together, explaining why this is the tough part of the fight for Iraqi freedom.
Matthew Singer | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 1:54 pm | #

To me, the real issue is not just Iraq or its rebuilding (important as those are). The real issue is community. Our (Democrats) "big" message should be community building -domestically and internationally. We're all part of interconnected communities (family to international) that Bush specifically (with his unilateral policies and failure to support states in budget crunches) and hyper-individualism generally have damaged. We should emphasize building the strength of communities so that we cannot anticipate and solve problems at the appropriate levels.
Mark Hackler | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 4:47 pm | #

Does anyone get the feeling that GWB is taking his political cues from George Orwell's 1984? I have the unfortunate feeling that we'll be in a perpetual war between now and election day.

GWB and Rove will do anything, including perpetual war, to take the minds of the American people OFF of the economy.

I have every bit of confidence that Governor Dean will make the race one on economic issues.
JobyTodd | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 5:04 pm | #

Somewhat OT: did anybody see that Dean has picked up his first Congressional endorsement? Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, has announced her support for Dean and gave a phone interview to the SF Chronicle.

Dean corrals key Bay Area endorsement

The same article mentions that Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, will be announcing her support for Lieberman. Boo hiss!
Theresa in Oakland | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 5:51 pm | #

Aziz writes: "But it's quite ludicrous to suggest any other outcome than total Bush Administration victory."

It's important to note that it was the brave members of the US armed forces that won this victory -- not draft-dodger Bush and his cohort of chickenhawks.

Yes, indeed -- that's the same US miliary that Bush pronounced "not ready for duty" in his campaign just a little over a year before the successful routing of Afghanistan's Taliban regime.

It's also the same US military that Bush and his political appointees prevented from full-on pursuing the Taliban and Al Qaeda at the battle of Tora Bora.

It is absolutely unacceptable to let Bush co-opt military successes in the coming campaign.
joe rospars | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 6:37 pm | #

Dean owes no one an apology for his stance, and backing off now would only make him appear weak. The fact remains that it is far too early to tell if the policy of pre-emptive warfare to remove a dictator is the most prudent policy to follow. No one - including Dr. Dean himself - ever doubted the results of the war. It was always a first world military superpower against a largely disarmed third world tin pot dictator. Winning the peace, however, is going to be altogether another affair. A dictator has been removed, but at what cost? If we have destroyed the international prestige we once commanded on the world stage, set back relations with the Arab world, and alienated our allies, to say nothing of the thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, the price of impatience may have been too high. It remains to be seen whether Iraq becomes a flowering democracy, an American Lebanon, or the Arab world's Yugoslavia. Only time will tell. What happened in Iraq the day after Baghdad fell will not be as important as what is happening in the country six or nine months down the road.

Dean needs to recognize -unequivocally - that the removal of Saddam Hussein is a good thing for the immediate liberty of the Iraqi people. He would be wise however to continue to project the long term implications of what we have begun, to continue to take a hard line on the policy of pre-emptive warfare, and to emphasize how the world is NOT a safer place today due to this revolutionary and flat out illegal policy.

Finally, we should not forget that the masses of crowds, initially at least, welcomed our arrival in Mogadishu as well. For team Bush, the really hard part is now about to begin.
Jtsantella in Portland | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 6:40 pm | #

My ideas for talking points. Sorry, it's a little long.

Removing Saddam Hussein from power
Excellent. The world will be a better place without him. It's unfortunate that his removal required the loss of so many lives, including those of the men and women in our armed forces.

Bush administration reasons for going to war
I'd like to think that the Bush administration was honest in its reasons for sending this country to war, and I'm hopeful that the weapons of mass destruction will turn up to prove that Iraq was a threat to this nation, which was our rationale at the time we invaded Iraq.

On Iraqis dancing in the streets
I'm hopeful that the Iraqis dancing in the streets represent all Iraqis, but I think that's wishful thinking. We should continue to expect to face resentment and hatred from a significant portion of the Iraqi people, because after all, we killed and maimed thousands of Iraqis in this war. Some of them were innocent women and children, and I think it's highly unlikely that their surviving family members were among those dancing in the streets.

Dollar Cost of the war
The dollar cost of this war is inconsequential, when compared to the brave American soldiers who sacrificed their lives on the battlefield. Now is not the time to be cutting veterans benefits as some members of Congress have shamelessly tried to do.

Costs of the peace
After invading Iraq, it would be irresponsible for the U.S. to leave without doing everything we can to ensure the best prospects for democracy and stability in that country. This responsibility comes as a direct consequence of the war, and we must not shirk it, or we risk the gains which Americans have paid their lives to secure.

Was the war worth it?
Like all wars, this war was not without cost. Thousands of people were killed, and thousands more were maimed. Iraq has descended, at least temporarily, into lawlessness and chaos. The United States has emerged as an even bigger target for terrorism. Arabs hate and fear us in greater numbers than ever. We need to heal the wounds of this war, in Iraq and in the Middle East, before we can truly determine if the war was worth the cost. An Iraq which is stable and democratic would go a long way toward healing the wounds and may help to assuage the fears of people throughout the world who continue to doubt our motives for invading Iraq.

Were you wrong to oppose the war? Hasn't it helped the Iraqi people?
I stand by my opposition to the war. I believe that the war solved one problem, the problem of Saddam Hussein, but it creates so many more problems. As to whether it helped the Iraqi people, it did not help those who were killed and maimed. It has the potential to help the survivors of the war, but only if this administration can learn to tread a bit more lightly than they have during the past few years. The way the administration has threatened and bullied our o
Paul Stone | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 9:34 pm | #

...tail end of prior post

Were you wrong to oppose the war? Hasn't it helped the Iraqi people?
I stand by my opposition to the war. I believe that the war solved one problem, the problem of Saddam Hussein, but it creates so many more problems. As to whether it helped the Iraqi people, it did not help those who were killed and maimed. It has the potential to help the survivors of the war, but only if this administration can learn to tread a bit more lightly than they have during the past few years. The way the administration has threatened and bullied our own allies troubles me, because if we demonstrate the same ham-handedness in the American occupation of Iraq, there's no telling how things will turn out. We've got to start behaving the way Mr. Bush promised to behave, with humility on the world stage. I believe that if Mr. Bush will fulfill that campaign promise, then we have a chance for success in post-war Iraq.
Paul Stone | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 9:36 pm | #

"But it's quite ludicrous to suggest any other outcome than total Bush Administration victory."

Huh?

You're watching too much CNN.
You're watching too much Fox.
You're watching too much MSNBC.

When Americans are still dying in Iraq 18 months from now, we'll see what the final score is. Just because Bush and his networks have declared victory doesn't mean it's over.

Whoever goes first in Scrabble can expect to take the lead, but there are still at least 93 tiles to be played.

There are a lot more tiles left to be played in the Middle East.
Dave Evans | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 10:15 pm | #

Personally, I think that the talk of civilian casualties needs to be toned down significantly. Dean's position is that it's *this specific war* that is wrong, not all wars - and harping on the number of civilian casualties we're seeing here is going to be a weak, weak point when people throw out figures on how many people hussein had killed.

Also, in my consideration the assertion that the number of casualties will be the primary cause of extended iraqi resistance is flat-out fallacious. The deaths and injuries inflicted by the military campaign will surely be talked about, but they cannot be the true motivation, as this war was executed rather respectfully as far as armed invasions are concerned.
Bill Phillips | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 11:17 pm | #

Let's not forget that the current occupant of the White House said during the 2000 Presidential Campaign that he is opposed to the US Military becoming involved in "nation building".

I think Dean could use that against Bush. The talking point would be something like "Bush promised not to get involved in nation building. His mishandling of the postwar situation in Iraq shows he's kept that promise. I, on the other hand, want to help the Iraqi people build a free and prosperous Iraq." You could throw Afghanistan into it as well if things there continue the way they are.

Wanting to rebuild Iraq is going to seem to conflict with his criticisms over the cost of peace. He'll have to emphasize something along the lines of "we shouldn't have signed up for these costs, but since we have it would be wrong to back out."
Stentor | Email | Homepage | 04.10.03 - 11:41 pm | #

Let's all take a deep breath and be patient. Never make assumptions in the moment of triumphalism. That's like all of the people who said, "Well, that settles that, let's roll" after Colin Powell's presentation, only later to find out the "evidence" was, shall we say, short on actual facts. The initial battle is over, but that's only one step in a long process. The staged image of the Saddam statue toppling was powerful, but so will a lot of images from here on. Howard Dean need not apologize for his stance, and his attack line about "humiliation" of other countries is a good one. Everything is fine and dandy in Rumsfeld's world, but he's the only one who's been truly vindicated in any way by the military success. The political success is far less likely.
BriVT | Email | Homepage | 04.11.03 - 8:01 am | #

Bush administration reasons for going to war
I'd like to think that the Bush administration was honest in its reasons for sending this country to war, and I'm hopeful that the weapons of mass destruction will turn up to prove that Iraq was a threat to this nation, which was our rationale at the time we invaded Iraq.

Personally, I don't believe we are in Iraq for reasons even remotely resembling altruism. If that were the case, we wouldn't have let Idi Amin or Pol Pot murder thousands upon thousands without intervening. I think, rather, that Bush & Co. were more likely motivated by a "what's in it for us" thought process.
Lauren B in Vermont | Email | Homepage | 04.11.03 - 9:52 am | #

"Suppose" was unusually weak.

But, it is more than outweighed by coming out with a coherent plan on reconstruction immediately, one that recognizes the commitment our country has taken on even if Dean would not have chosen that route. A courageous thing to do.
Katherine Hawkins | Email | Homepage | 04.11.03 - 3:59 pm | #

At worst a poor choice of words, but not that poor. I think the "suppose" means it's a good thing Saddam is gone, but was it worth the cost (bravo to BriVT, BTW)? Was it worth alienating our friends and allies? Was it worth dividing the American public? I "suppose" we'll find out eventually.
Allan Todd | Email | Homepage | 04.11.03 - 7:56 pm | #

Re: Dean's Seven Points

Dems never win by being "fair" (says Mike Tomasky). The Bush junta, Poppy and Junior, are architects to great crimes, not the least of which was stealing, without moment's thought, the 2000 election while Al Gore and Cup 'a Joe Lieberman played morally but happlessly into their hands.

My point is Gov. Dean with his seven points is on the road to seizing power, de jure or de facto or both. And good for him. The Bush/Rove machine will cut your heart out, and eat it, if it keeps them in power. So Dean is doing a very smart thing: acting as a shadow president. What the hell, we don't have one and the other Dems represent the train wreck of Democratic capitulation.

Dean looks presidential, he acts presidential, he should assume the job. He's won the media and they'll eat it up. (Reminds me somehow of the fatuous phrase "A "bourgeous (sp?) riot" from Paul Gigot on the Bush-sponsored squashing of the vote count in Miami-Dade. Here's our turn for a counter coup, to be ratified by something called an election in 2004, which will not take place or will be meaningless unless Bush is stopped now.)

Dave B.
NYC
Dave B | Email | Homepage | 04.12.03 - 3:12 am | #