|
THE NEW REPUBLIC
BIGGEST LOSER OF THE LAST 24 HOURS?: Okay, that's Saddam Hussein. But the second biggest loser has to be Howard Dean. As The Note points out today, Dean has now perfectly backed himself into a corner: "He has said the United States should go in[to] Iraq in the face of convincing evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Now, with his Democratic rivals all talking about how powerful the evidence is, he is left arguing that the evidence doesn't show that."
Actually, it's even worse than that. According to today's New York Times, Dean emphasized after Powell's speech "that he was not opposed to action to remove Mr. Hussein if [Iraq] was not in compliance with the United Nations, as opposed to action by the United States alone." But the point of Powell's presentation yesterday wasn't to make the case for unilateral action per se. It was to make the case that ... Iraq is not in compliance with the United Nations--exactly the case Dean said he needed to see made.
The gaping hole in Dean's logic is that he assumes (or, more plausibly, pretends) there are only two ways of getting to war: (1) Saddam doesn't comply with the United Nations, and this triggers a multilateral war; or (2) he does comply with the United Nations, in which case we have to go to war unilaterally if we still want to go at all. But an obvious third scenario is that Saddam doesn't comply with the United Nations--and Powell clearly demonstrated yesterday that he hasn't so far--but the countries that make up the United Nations choose to look the other way. Faced with that scenario, it seems that someone who's argued we should go to war if Iraq doesn't comply would have to support a non-U.N.-sanctioned war. And yet Dean says he supports nothing of the kind. The man just isn't serious.
posted 2:00 p.m.
Return to the top of the page.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 02.06.03 - 3:15 pm | #
|
|
www.andrewsullivan.com -
HOWARD DEAN IS UNSERIOUS: That's TNR's view. Now they tell us? This is the guy who recently said that if Bush remained president, girls would soon be barred from going to school.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 02.06.03 - 3:17 pm | #
|
|
okay anonymous, i'm not sure whether you are being anti-dean or whether you are alerting us to the memes that TNR and the odious sully are trying to spread. i'll assume the best in this case.
let me reiterate two things:
first, dean did not compare bush to the taliban. he made a joke. poor choice of words, perhaps, but a joke nonetheless. if you will watch the video, you'll see the quote is clearly in jest.
second, dean supports action against iraq provided the case is made, but he does not feel iraq should be our priority. once again TNR and sully are spreading the meme that dean wouldn't use military force. that is a flat out lie. dean stated that he found the evidence compelling, and once again he stressed the need for multilateral action should the UN decide that iraq in not in compliance.
he also stated that he believes that iraq should not be our priority; rather, we should be going after al-quaeda and the taliban. if one agrees that al-quaeda is the priority, then i can't understand how they'd knock dean for saying so.
sorry, but i don't see any holes in that logic. looks like it's time to fire off some letters to TNR and sully:
online@tnr.com
andrew@andresullivan.com
anna | Email | Homepage | 02.06.03 - 4:06 pm | #
|
|
Another quick mention of Dean's stance (along with a photo):
http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/
751619p-5441227c.html
Jason Gohlke | Email | Homepage | 02.06.03 - 4:40 pm | #
|
|
This issue is a waste of time for the presidential hopefuls from the Democratic side. The Senators can certainly take a stance because they're in the Senate and actually get to vote on some of this stuff.
Dean should make it well known that he doesn't support unilateral action but that he does support military action if the UNSC votes for it -- but by the time he's moving in to the White House this discussion is going to be totally irrelevant (we'll have already gone in or not, with UN support or without it). The discussion that's going to count is the one he's been having since last summer -- let us not shy away from nation building, let us not shy away from public investment in countries we've just liberated from oppressive regimes. We'll get the money back by having more peer countries in the world to do honest business with, as well as less regimes to depose as time wears on.
Ken | Email | Homepage | 02.06.03 - 5:51 pm | #
|
|
I love the fact that Dean-bashers are trying to penetrate this blog. Hey, "Anonymous" (is that you, Joe Klein?)if you don't like Dean, go find somebody to support. You're not going to dissuade anyone here.
Besides, neither you, "anonymous", nor anyone else with any credibility has responded to the national security risks associated with the Bush energy plan (continued support for Middle East oil and all its varied 'activities')... much less the environmental degradation that goes with it. If you like Papa and Junior Bush so much, you should go work on their oil rigs... Oh, and don't tell us about the 'hydrogen' future that Bush conjured up the other day. $1.2 billion is a drop in the oil rig, compared to the subsidies that that industry gets, and he said nothing about wind (fastest growing renewable energy source in the country at 20% annually), solar, or geothermal... much less more sustainable forms of hydro-power.
Dean's the only guy out there talking any sense about creating good paying American jobs and becoming an energy exporter, instead of continuing to feed our massive apetite for oil... oh, yeah, and now the Republicans don't want to talk about the deficit anymore, do they? No wonder you want to remain Anonymous.
cjcurtis | Email | Homepage | 02.06.03 - 5:55 pm | #
|
|
Oops. Hey, anonymous. Was just re-reading your posts and Anna's. Am in a hurry to get out of here...
Apologies if you were just quoting TNR as Anna said. But, if you did mean it... I take nothing back!
But seriously, the thing that gets me is on all these websites the degree to which blogs, sites, forums, etc. supposedly SUPPORTING candidates end up with people who are obviously opposed to them making posts... I don't go to pro-Bush sites b/c I don't support the man, so it's just frustrating when I see other people posting when they're not really there for the candidate we're all trying to mobilize for.
Anyhow, that's my rant for the day. Hope everyone else had a good time at their Dean meet-ups last night!
Best, CJC
cjcurtis | Email | Homepage | 02.06.03 - 6:05 pm | #
|
|
This is anonymous writing again.
Far from being a Dean basher, I'm Howard Dean's biggest fan.
I met him last year and I find his authenticity to be refreshing. What's more, I think he's the only candidate positioned to run the kind of successful outsider campaign pursued by four of the last five presidents.
I think the TNR/Note criticism is the most serious criticism that his campaign has faced to date.
(Sullivan's repetition of the NARAL comment is totally baseless; I was at the speech and it was cleary said in jest. I posted the Sullivan comment -so that people would know that Sullivan was directing people to the TNR criticism regarding Iraq).
I attended a fantastic Dean meet-up last night.
More than his stance on any single issue, I got the sense that Dean's greatest appeal is his straightforward approach and willingness to stand his ground.
I thought it was terrific when Dean took Kerry to task for trying to have it both ways on Iraq following Kerry's Georgetown speech.
That's why Dean has to be so careful not to succumb to the temptation of espousing a war position that tries to have it both ways.
While it's true that Iraq will not be on the front-burner one year from now, the media will not let a self-styled straight-shooter live down fuzziness on war.
So what I'm trying to do -- is get a sense from all of you on what Dean's position should be - now that Colin Powell has presented his evidence to the United Nations?
a. should he say that Powell did NOT make the case for war - b/c there was no real evidence of nuclear weapons, the ties to al qaeda were unclear, and America should be in the business of "hitting back" but not "hitting first." This position could include concern for addressing the root cause of the crisis (such as our dependence on foreign oil) and the need to finish the job with Al Qaeda.
b. should he say that Powell DID make the case for war - and that he will support a war - but that ultimate judgment about whether the evidence is compelling belongs to the collective members of the UN security council (not to the U.S. President). In other words, that war MUST come with United Nations approval in order to be a just war.
c. should he say that Powell DID make the case for - and that he wants the U.S. to make every effort to build multilateral support - but he will reluctantly support unilateral action if other countries will not join the U.S.
Of course, Dean has to follow his gut on this one. But I think it's fascinating to find out where my fellow Dean supporters come down on this.
Teddy Davis | Email | Homepage | 02.06.03 - 6:49 pm | #
|
|
I'm too depressed over this madness for Bush's war to pay attention to Powell's details. He's no Adlai Stevenson showing photos of missles in Cuba.
No surprise about the cave-ins by the Liebermans, Kerrys, etc. Same spinelessness that got Dems crushed in November.
To me it is simple, as Gov. Dean said: This is the wrong war, as does Bob Graham, who saw a lot on the intelligence committee.
The buzz around NYC seems to me that you'd better get your gasmask for that subway ride to work. Bush's war is manufactured. Saddam is a monster, but we lost our friends and families when those planes flew into the WTC on 9/11--and they were flown by Saudis, more connected to the friends of Poppy Bush and the Carlyle Group. Saddam has no power in the Northeast part of Iraq, where Al-Quaida was connected. Where is Bin Laden these days?
Dean has politely and effectively and consistently made his case. Dean for President, Graham for Veep.
DB
cc: TNR
DaveB | Email | Homepage | 02.06.03 - 8:31 pm | #
|
|
This is my only concern with Dean: he sometimes doesn't allow himself a little room to budge if the facts and opinion change.
I think Dean sensed that this presentation was going to be an success a week or so ago and leaked his requirements for war to an "insider" newspaper, Roll Call (which commonly isn't cited outside the beltway). Now, he can say that he was only for the war with specific set conditions and it doesn't seem like a flip cuz it was already in public (but unnoticed) record.
Dean isn't running on Iraq, so it won't be a focus come January (I don't think Bush will be dumb enough to extend this war till January)
Americans vote on the future, not the past. Thats why no one talks about Newt Gingrich anymore (like they won't talk about Clinton in '04).
I will also say that liberal WEALTHY hollywood anti-war activists can open up big pocketbooks for Dean for all this press.
Dean - Clark/Graham '04!!
Seth | Email | Homepage | 02.06.03 - 10:35 pm | #
|
|
While we shoudl defend against trolls, I think its unwise to tell Dean critics to go elsewhere. We can certainly withstand and shoudl actively invite principled discussion and debate here. If someone has an anti-Dean viewpoint, we should not try to shut them down or censor them, but rather give them a chance to air their views - so we can respond. Thats far more effective and beneficial to Dean in te long run.
Aziz Poonawalla | Email | Homepage | 02.07.03 - 7:53 am | #
|
|
over the past few days i've noticed a serious increase in dean-bashing. in newspapers, on blogs, comment threads, etc. it seems to me that we are on to something here. the republicans are -scared- of this man, and they're doing everything they can to prevent him from becoming a major factor.
do you see this pattern as well? that alone gives me all the more reason to support dean. i got my bumper sticker yesterday and aziz, it looks great!
anna | Email | Homepage | 02.07.03 - 6:09 pm | #
|
|