Howard Dean’s takin’ a lickin’ for his remarks the other day on the war in Iraq. Reports the Seattle P.I.:
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean on Monday likened the war to Vietnam, adding “The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong.”
Howie. My Howie. He knows how to attract lightning. In 2003 and early 2004, Seattle political activist Ray Minchew worked his tail off for Dean’s candidacy. I was working my tush off for Dean too, so I got to know Ray, a delightful, sharp and kind person. After Dean’s statement Monday, Ray wrote this in a group e-mail:
As usual with Howard and his controversial statements, WHAT he said was spot-on, but HOW he said it left the door open for Republican hair-on-fire attacks. Having Bush respond to him directly elevates the question, though.
On Tuesday, in a direct dig at Howard Dean, “President Bush denounced as ‘pessimists’ those who suggested there be a timetable for withdrawal.” (Seattle P.I.) And here’s how Bush referred to Ho-Ho in his Iraq/economy speech on Wednesday:
In this debate, some are calling for us to withdraw from Iraq on a fixed timetable, without regard to conditions on the ground. Recently, one Democratic leader came out in support of an artificial deadline for withdrawal, and said an immediate withdrawal of our troops would, “make the American people safer, our military stronger, and bring some stability to the region.” That’s the wrong policy for our government. Withdrawing on an artificial deadline would endanger the American people, would harm our military, and make the Middle East less stable. It would give the terrorists exactly what they want.
House Speaker Dennis “Bagman” Hastert (R-Ill) also piped up immediately:
“We should all be grateful that Governor Dean is not General Dean. … Rather than standing by our troops who are fighting the war on terror, Howard Dean has made it clear the Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender.” (Seattle P.I.)
Jerry Springer, on the MSNBC Scarborough Country show, defended Dean’s statements. Brinnainne paraphrased Springer in the story, “When History Is Written …“:
[paraphrase follows]
Who gives a rat’s ass about whether or not what Dean said is bad for democrats or good for republicans??? This is WAR we’re talking about, not partisian politics — the question we SHOULD be discussing is: what if Dean is RIGHT? What if that is really the bottom line?
Then he quoted Bush from [a Today Show interview on Aug. 31, 2004] when Bush said “I don’t think we can win it.” (It being the war on terror…)
WTG, Brinnainne! And thanks for sharing your gift for remembering what Shrub said when. (Below the fold, JPol, who saw the same interview, discusses a problem with some of Springer’s comments.)
While the piling on continues, Dean is replying by saying that “his assertion that the United States cannot win the war in Iraq was reported ‘a little out of context’, saying Democrats believe a new U.S. strategy is needed to succeed there,” reports today’s Seattle P.I./AP, via Howie in Seattle‘s blog:
“They kind of cherry-picked that one the same way the president cherry-picked the intelligence going into Iraq,” [Dean said].
Dean was questioned on CNN about an interview he gave Monday to radio station WOAI in San Antonio. “The idea that we’re going to win this war is an ideal that unfortunately is just plain wrong,” … […]
On Thursday, Dean stressed at several junctures in the interview that Democrats support U.S. troops struggling to secure Iraq. He seemed to be striving to counter charges that statements by some Democrats suggesting a pullout are having the effect of undermining U.S. servicemen and women. … (Today’s Seattle P.I./A.P., via Howie in Seattle‘s blog)
Hey, Ho Ho. Don’t back down too much. We need blunt voices like yours and Jack Murtha’s. Now, for the piece de resistance! From Crooks & Liars, of course:
Howard Stern defends Howard Dean
Stern got all over the NY Post for printing a crazy article that’s not from their op-ed pages.
Stern: I don’t see anybody on the NY Post going over to to fight the war. What kind of cowards are they?
“French Surrender Monkey”
Stern: How many of umm-any of those Fox television guys, John Gibson, Bill O’Reilly—-how do they call someone a coward when they haven’t fought in one war? … (Read all and listen to the MP3)
Thanks, Howard and the other Howard, for telling it like it is, dammit! And, below the fold, do NOT miss JPol’s comments to me in an e-mail, and which he expressly gave me permission to reprint here — for you:
From JPol:
Some of the criticism is really interesting. It starts out attacking Dean and then comes around to acknowledging that a growing number of members of Congress and the public (based on the polls) are coming to the same conclusions Dean did. That was the gist of how it was treated on Matthews last night, and I’ve seen similar coverage elsewhere.
It boils down to: Dean is right, but why does he have to say what he says? Jerry Springer, of all people, basically said the same thing about Dean, I think on Scarborough. He then conceded that perhaps Dean probably would have been better off not having said it.
I think that is bullshit. Dean said what he feels, and a majority of the public agrees with him. The cowardly Democrats who want to look tough in “the war on terror” are simply embarrassed at how their words contrast with Dean’s.
The wingnuts who say he is demoralizing the troops and giving aid and comfort to the enemy just are not to be taken seriously. I think the right wingers are running scared, and the only way they know how to deal with things is to go into attack mode and try to stir up emotions. That may work when Bush has the public scared and mesmerized, but that isn’t the case any more.
The public is starting to notice that they use the same fear/patriotism/support the troops rhetoric over and over again, and it isn’t resonating any more. Daily headlines about planted news, torture, and rendition aren’t helping them either. That German who was abducted and tortured who is sueing the U.S. is an interesting phenonemonen. That was the kind of story you would read about on the blogs and the British media until recently. Now it is front-page msm news.
Go Dean. Keep speaking your mind. If the DNC tries to oust him for his honesty they will have a major revolt on their hands from the rank-and-file. Besides, he is doing a great job organizing Democrats in the Red states, and he is bringing in money. They don’t want to fire him, just to muzzle him.
Go, Howie, Howard, Brinnainne (whose head must hurt from remembering so much about Bush), John Amato, and Jerry P. too!
Who said this?
The Answer.
A COWARD! That’s WHO! A monkey surrenderer coward!
We’ll get rid of that sell-out Democrat in his next election ….
ohhhhhh ….
The cowardly Democrats who want to look tough in “the war on terror” are simply embarrassed at how their words contrast with Dean’s.
The truth hurts. Dean’s not perfect, but I always appreciate his honesty and direct speech. Others come around to his points of view eventually.
Have no fear about his DNC leadership. He’s doing well there. Do what I do: give the DNC money when Republicans attack Howard unjustly. Give twice as much when Democrats do.
I love your donation strategy! How do you let them know that that’s why you’re donating?
btw, another person on the old Seattle Dean list just posted this most excellent rant against the Dems who don’t like what Dean’s been saying:
My “two cents” for Howard Dean.
A) howard has always needed someone to teach him how to speak…he is always right…he just never [picks the right words….what he should have said is “Bush and the Republicans lost this war. Now we have to clean up after him.” or “The idea we can win this war the way the Republicans are running it is just plain wrong.”
B) worse than flubbing is this stupid thing he does to recover….he almost always claims its out of context…which it might be but so what….by then dumbass america cant remember the context and doesnt have the smarts to figure it out or the patience to listen to anyone explain it….y6ou have to talk to dumbass america in short simple sentences…not even sentences….catchy slogans….thats what they respond to…something they can comprehend in between watching desperate housewives and dancing with the stars…then after the you took me out of context whine, dean gives a completely half assed wimpy version of what he already said…one thing i noticed about murtha that i can see america is responding to….his comebacks are short and strong and sometimes even outrageous…but they work….dean needs to learn how to do that.
dean and the rest of the dems need to speak like they have god on their side.
Super, Anna.
When we were working on Dean’s campaign, and got a chance to talk to the people in Burlington or at regional headquarters, we invariably asked them to get a terrific speech coach for Dean.
Besides the problems you state so well, he also tended to appear very wooden in TV interviews and in TV debates.
This is the best distillation of a great strategy I’ve seen:
dean and the rest of the dems need to speak like they have god on their side
Right on, sister.
yes i remember his woodenness…he seems to have loosened up…he should do yoga stuff just with his neck….speaking of yoga you should see the online political fights the yoga people get into…it makes the lefty blog fights look like love ins….you would think people into relaxing their bodies and minds wouldnt have that fight in them.
SNORT! I used to take yoga in this class that was just too crowded, and I frequently contemplated yogacide…
This story is just for you, Anna. Nobody else look, okay?!
I got a call from the campaign to fly to Burlington and appear behind Dean when he announced that he wouldn’t accept federal matching funds. Wow … so off I went.
The morning of the speech, we went to this gorgeous old historic Vermont building, and Dean met the small group of us who’d flown in to stand behind Dean.
Then we each got our photo taken with Dean.
So, I stand close to him, — just the way the photographer wanted me to do. But, I wondered, what do I do with my scrunched right arm?
So I put my hand on Dean’s back — only — um — I’m about 2 inches taller than he, and — um — my hand landed smack on his tush.
He kind of jerked a little bit.
I was too embarrassed to say a word, but quickly moved my hand UP!
(Yes, it’s firm.)
I am so glad you said what you did. It worries me to see Dean back off when questioned about his remarks. Resorting to cliches like “cherry-picking” and the old “out of context” excuse sounds defensive and Republican. He needs to be who he has always been; he gives me the impression now of standing alone, and it makes him seem vulnerable and predictable.
This is off-topic, but I really want to know if any of you have noticed it. When Republicans (Delay, Elizabeth Dole, Santorum, etc.) refer to us, they often call us the “Democrat” party. What’s that about?
Oh, yeah. It’s totally deliberate. They are trying to delink the Democratic Party with democracy and “democratic” processes in their rhetoric.
They don’t want anybody to think Dems are small-d democratic, or advocates of democracy. Just more petty crap from the usual tiny minds.
Ho,Ho, Ho reminds me of a “holiday” card (sorry Mr. O’Reilly, but I am just one of those liberals out to destroy Christmas) I received during that other war built on lies: Vietnam. The card had Ho Chi Minh on the front dressed in a Santa Claus outfit. Inside were the words: “Ho, Ho, Ho.”
Off topic, I know, but it just brought back memories.
I know Dean could probably be a bit more artful in the way he sometimes phrases things, but that is part of what I like about him. People are always going to try to distort what he says, but his meaning is usually clear to those who want to listen. I find him refreshing and honest, flubs and all. I’d hate to see him change.
What a C’mas card!
And your story reminds me of marching in the streets chantnig, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is gonna win!”
(Silly young folk we were.)
That was one of the few chants that didn’t contain profanity, but it sure pissed off the hard hats.
Here’s the link to Scarborough’s show Tuesday night with Springer.
From MSNBC Hardball’s newsletter:
I suspect that as long as our Democratic party is under the thumb of the current “leadership” and prominent power players, (excluding Dean, because he’s not part of the policy arm), we’ll remain at a disadvantage not only in electoral numbers but also in being able to bring about meaningful change in the wake of the Bush regime’s comprehensive national debacle. In a way, it would almost be better for the Repubs to seize the WH again in 2008, if for no other reason that for them to be seen as having “full ownership” of the myriad catastrophes they’ve inflicted upon the country and the world.
They already have ownership of the catastrophes, imo. We need someone to start fixing the mess asap.
We know they are the owners of these catastrophes, and more and more people are finally coming to realize it too.
But, as is even obvious in the poitical cowardice of the prominent Dems, there are still not enough people yet willing to stand up and repudiate the Repub extremist agenda in it’s entirety, and, sadly, I believe that until there are enough of us “we the people” to compel our Dems to declare themselves categorically opposed to the Bush agenda in all it’s iterations, we will just wind up getting more of the same equivocation and self-serving bullshit, the Repub machine will continue to dominate and manipulate the public discourse, and our path in the world at large will remain extremely destructive.
Sadly, I don’t see any of the prominent Dems demonstrating a real desire to act immediately to stop our criminal war in Iraq. Even Russ Feingold qualifies his position on this. I read these perspectives as tragedies.
I’m not arguing against the benefits that might accrue should the Dems achieve a majority in one or both houses of congress. Such achievement would go a long way toward severly hampering the ability of the Repub extremists to ram through their shit and cover up theirown malfeasance. But, even with that, if we elect a Dem president who accepts that we have to remain active in Iraq, our problems will get worse by several orders of magnitude, regardless of whatever else such a president might accomplish.
was comparing Iraq to Vietnam. In Vietnam there was at least a theoretical “victory scenario”: the South would take over the country. In Iraq there is nothing similar. There is no “victory” that any sane person could even imagine, unless they think the US can occupy it as a colony for the indefinite future.
I can’t think of a single specific definition of “victory” in Iraq by the GOP apologists for this invasion. Seriously. I’d be grateful if anybody can remind us of a definition of what “winning” in Iraq would consist of. (Short of some magical thinking utopia where the factions would all of a sudden love one another and decide to share power for the good of all.)
my diary at Kos.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/8/18837/0759