Friday, March 17, 2006
Howard Dean was right
As pointed out by Donald Kaul in his column today, Howard Dean had this to say 3 years ago, just before the US invaded Iraq.
“I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America’s security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein….
“Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the President to use unilateral force against Iraq….
“That the President was given open-ended authority to go to war in Iraq resulted from a failure of too many in my party in Washington who were worried about political positioning for the presidential election.
“The stakes are so high, this is not a time for holding back or sheepishly going along with the herd.”
“If we go to war, I certainly hope the Administration’s assumptions are realized, and the conflict is swift, successful and clean. I certainly hope our armed forced will be welcomed like heroes and liberators in the streets of Baghdad.
“It is possible, however, that events could go differently…
“Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.
“Anti-American feeling will surely be inflamed among the misguided who choose to see an assault on Iraq as an attack on Islam, or as a means of controlling Iraqi oil.”
Although the above statements seem obvious now they were definitely not seen as such at the time and not many other Democratic elected officials agreed with them. Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold were just about the only exceptions. Hilary Clinton is touted by the news media as the leader for the 2008 presidential nomination, apparently because she, unlike Dean, Kucinich and Feingold, says things the media expects and is comfortable with.
It appears that a good way to see the truth and accurately predict the future is to espouse ideas being ridiculed or ignored by the news media.