Everytime this guy opens his mouth something stupid falls out. Malkin had a little to say about Dean's recent performance on Meet the Press. Dean called Saddam a "pain in the neck." Observes Malkin:
Dean's comments are just more proof that Democrats really, truly, wholly don't get it. Saddam Hussein invaded two sovereign countries, brutally murdered the Kurds, his thug sons raped women and young girls, cut off limbs, slaughtered whole families, built prisons for children, and rained down pain and destruction on the people of Iraq like Howard Dean can not possibly imagine. His downplaying of the evil of Saddam Hussein shows he's unfit for any sort of leadership role. I can't wait for Dean's statement that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is such a jerky face and that Kim Jong Il is so, like, annoying.
Indeed. I got to reading the transcript of the interview she references and found this wasn't the only dumb thing he said, and I didn't think it was even the dumbest thing he said.
Before I get started, one thing you get to see is a look at the Democratic Party Leaders mindset about his party's agenda - oppose George Bush. Why did Lieberman deserve to be eaten alive by the party he's been so faithful to? Because he didn't oppose Bush on one issue:
MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about the big political news of the week, that of course related to Senator Joe Lieberman. Six years ago he was the vice presidential choice for your party. What happened?
MR. DEAN: I think he embraced George Bush’s policies, and the American people are tired of George Bush’s policies. They want a new direction in this country, and, and the voters have spoken.
He embraced George Bush's policy. That was the same policy that goes back to Bill Clinton, and Democrats who voted for it are now applauding Lieberman being abandon by the party for continuing to support it on principle rather than sway with the political wind.
But never mind that.
This speaks to the mind of the Democratic Party. What is the most important thing a Democrat has to do? What's the litmus test for determining whether they are worthy to serve the country as a Democrat? Is it honesty? No. Is it dedication to the party and his constituents? No. Consistency? Definately not. Integrity? No. Faithfulness to core Democratic and liberal principles? Nope. Lieberman has maintained all those qualities, but that wasn't nearly enough. He got fired for not taking the opposite opositional stance on not most, but ALL of Bush's policies. Most isn't enough - it has to be all, because that's the DNC's core agenda - to oppose Bush. What will they do if they take power?
Dean said it himself:
The way to help this country is to limit Republican power.
It only gets better.
MR. GREGORY: On the issue of the war, is the Democratic Party welcome to differing views about the war?
What can Dean say? He just fired Lieberman for having a differing view on the war. First he has to lie - here's his answer:
MR. DEAN: Sure we are. I think we very much are.
Uh...yeah. Sure. Dean goes on:
...the problem that Joe had was he embraced the president. This is a president who’s been bad for America.
Its ok to have differing views, so long as you don't agree with Bush. That's what Dean is saying - "you can disagree with us, just make sure you disagree with Bush." Dean knows he's begun to paint himself in a corner, so what does he do? Why, he brings up...you know...North Dakota.
You should see what’s going on in North Dakota—farmers who’ve not had any drought relief, people losing their health care. There’s a—the president’s paying no attention to the middle class. Kids want to go to college; they can’t do it now because the president’s cut their Pell grants. There’s a lot of problems in this country that are not being addressed, and Ned Lamont will address those questions.
For crying out loud - North Dakota people! Never mind I just showed my ass and revealed what a political disaster I am. Look what's happening in North Dakota! (Someone jog my memory, didn't he always pull this "look what's going on in North Dakota" tactic during his failed presidential campaign?) North Dakota just dried up because of Bush! People dying in the streets! Kids can't go to school! Its all Bush's fault what's happening in North Dakota, and by-god the next senator from Conecticut is going to solve North Dakota's problems, because Joe Lieberman sure as hell can't help them, he supports the war in Iraq.
MR. GREGORY: But, Chairman Dean...
But Chairman Dean indeed.
MR. GREGORY: ...you say that there’s room for other views on the war in Iraq. Senator Lieberman, supportive of the war, didn’t believe in a—in a date certain for troops. Is that view welcome within the party?
MR. DEAN: Sure. There are many other—many candidates running who don’t believe in a—in a deadline for the troops. The Democratic Party itself is on record saying that we ought to bring our troops home, but we’re not committing to bring our troops home immediately. I don’t know of any—or very few Democrats that want to do that. But we believe, along with the majority of the American people, that this war was a mistake and that—and that it’s, it’s a complete lack of leadership for the president of the United States to say, “Well, we’re going to leave this to the next president.” That is not leadership. This guy got us into this mess; he needs to get us out of this mess.
#1 If the majority if American people really think like you do, why has your party been losing so many elections?
#2 It's ok to not set a deadline, Bush hasn't set a deadline, you agree that we shouldn't bring our troops home imediately, how is your position different than the Administrations again?
#3 You want him to "get us out of this mess." Hypothetically, would you give him another term or two in the White House to do it?
MR. GREGORY: As you well know, there’s a number of, of Democrats, potential nominees, candidates in 2008, who have, in effect, recanted their support of the war, saying it was a mistake. A notable potential candidate who has not done that, of course, is Senator Hillary Clinton. She has not supported a date certain for withdrawal, nor has she said that her vote of support was a mistake. Does she need to recant that support in order to be the Democratic nominee, in your view?
MR. DEAN: Look, first of all, I don’t comment on 2008, I have to be the referee. Second of all, there’s plenty of room for differing points of view on how to defend America.
Except for Joe Lieberman's. Why was that again? Oh yeah, because he agreed with the president in not wanting to set a deadline. But wait, you said there's room for that...
Now Gregory corners him - or tries to - on what he actually wants to do besides oppose:
MR. GREGORY: You talk about defending America. What is the Democratic Party’s prescription for fighting and winning the war on terror?
MR. DEAN: Well, first of all, if you want to fight and win on the war on terror, the fact is Iraq is a distraction. Iraq never had anything to do with the war on terror and that’s just a fact and that’s what the 9/11 Commission said. So it’s not enough to listen to the right-wing folks that claim that we’re fighting the terrorists off the shore so they don’t come on the shore. That is hooey. The people who fought the terrorism best in the last couple of weeks have been the British, who uncovered this plot. We need to upgrade our airport security and we’ve tried to do that in the Democratic Party, and our additions to the budget in Homeland Security have been turned down by the Republican majority. We need a real tough fight on terror, but we need to be tough and smart, not just talk tough.
In other words, the DNC plan is to be more careful about taking tubes of Fixodent away from little old ladies who are flying to Florida.
Now here's one of my favorite parts of the interview.
MR. GREGORY: You heard the 9/11 co-chairmen. Does the Democratic Party believe—do you believe that a push for democratic reform in the Middle East is vital to winning the war on terror?
MR. DEAN: Yes, but...
He agrees with the motivation for the war in Iraq. But...
I think the way that the president went about pushing for democratic reform was incredibly foolish. It blew up in his face and now Americans are paying the price for that. We needed a much different strategy.
Hiring more people to take Fixodent away from little old ladies.
The truth was, we were controlling Saddam Hussein’s air space, he had no air force, he had little army.
We didn't remove him because of what was happening in Iraqi air space. We removed him for what happened on the ground - the collusion with terrorists.
Saddam Hussein was a pain in the neck and a bad person, but the fact is there are a lot of pains in the neck and bad people in this world. And what we should have been concentrating on is getting rid of the Taliban once and for all in Afghanistan who are now making a resurgence, making sure that Iraq—Iran does not have nuclear weapons.
Was that some sort of Freudian slip? If its ok to make sure Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons, why wasn't it ok to make sure that "Pain in the neck" Hussein didn't get nuclear weapons? And we did remove the Taliban from power, but the Taliban didn't attack us, they just helped the people who did - just as Saddam "Pain in the Neck" Hussein did.
...making sure that Iraq—Iran does not have nuclear weapons. That we cannot afford to have—to allow.
And why is that Mr. Dean? What might Iran do with nukes that Iraq wouldn't have?
And to make sure that North Korea is disarmed. Those ought to be the major priorities, because if nuclear weapons get in the hands of terrorists we have a much more serious problem than Saddam ever posed to the United States or to the region.
There you have it. The man has no clue.
Comments