Howard Dean’s familiar choice of words

DNC Chairman Howard Dean, who, as some may have noticed, has a tendency to make headlines with controversial remarks, raised a few eyebrows yesterday for suggesting that the United States may not win the war in Iraq.

“The idea that we’re going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong,” Dean told San Antonio radio station WOAI-AM on Monday. He drew a parallel to Vietnam, saying officials had said victory in that war would come in “just another year, just stay the course … and it cost us 25,000 brave American soldiers in Vietnam, and I don’t want to go down that road again.”

The White House and the entire Republican Machine immediately pounced with the kind of response you’d expect, while several Dems distanced themselves from the comments. I’ll concede that Dean could have been far more artful in how he chose his words, but before the political world throws too big a fit, there are a few things to keep in mind.

First, there may be a problem with context. I haven’t seen a full transcript of the interview, but Karen Finney, the DNC’s communications director, said that Dean was referring to Bush’s “permanent commitment to a failed strategy” that was doomed to fail. Second, Dean’s sentiments aren’t terribly different from Sen. Chuck Hagel’s (R-Neb.) comments a few months ago when he said the White House’s policies in Iraq are “completely disconnected from reality,” adding, “The reality is that we’re losing in Iraq.” I don’t recall GOP attack dogs lashing out at Hagel and accusing him of undermining the war and troop morale.

And, finally, let’s not forget that George W. Bush, in August 2004, in the midst of the war, told a national television audience that he doesn’t believe it’s even possible to win a war on terror.

When asked “Can we win?” the war on terror, Bush said: “I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.”

If I can borrow the Republican talking points for a moment, what do you suppose it says to our enemies around the globe when the commander-in-chief says he doesn’t think we can win a war on terror? How do you suppose the men and women in uniform feel when they hear the president say we can’t win the war they’re fighting?

Now, some of this is tongue-in-cheek; I know what Bush meant and his point was, of course, legitimate. My point is that the rhetoric about treason from conservatives need not be such a knee-jerk reaction every time a Dem criticizes the war effort. Bush didn’t mean we should surrender to terrorists in August 2004, and Dean didn’t either yesterday.

I still want to know what anyone means by win? The administration has sure never said to my satisfaction, at least.

  • Until I see some proof from the Bush Administration that they’re trying to win this war, I can’t argue with Dean’s analysis.

  • The Dems should righly use Hagel as a shield. If the Republicans/GWB supporters hang Hagel out to dry, so be it, but at the very least, Hagel is a non-Dem saying these critical things and the GOP is dead quiet about his comments. Whether Hagel does well going into the ’08 campaign based on this biting criticism of GWB remains to be seen, but nobody has questioned his bona fides as either a conservative or as a combat war vet. I’d really like to see the GWB hit-squad try to swift-boat a fellow GOP politician with his credentials. Truth be told, I’d be interested to see what campaign platform he runs on.

    But that’s the independent minded voter in me.

  • They pulled the same act on Dean awhile back when he said that Amerca wasn’t a safer place just because we had caught Saddam. Evidently the 9-11 Commission agrees with him. His track record is way better than any GOP spin-meister.

  • From Juan Cole’s post on the Dean interview:

    Actually, this debate is not about winning or losing. The maximalist goals of the Bush administration in Iraq have not been achieved and never will be achieved. Despite what Paul Bremer said, the US is not going to “impose its will on the Iraqis,” and despite (probably) Irving Lewis Libby’s silly allegation, the US is not manufacturing reality in Iraq (or at least not a very nice one–see the next item).

  • There’s still that big brontosaurus in the living
    room: why did we go to war in Iraq? I think if
    we could torture Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld,
    Wolfowitz and Rove to cough up the real
    reasons, we’d get five different answers, none
    of which coincide with the official line, whatever
    that is at this point, or whatever it was. That
    makes it impossible to define what “winning”
    means, as ET says.

    I suspect that even Bush doesn’t know why
    we’re there. I bet his answer would look
    markedly different from the others. He was
    sold on going to war the same way the
    American people were, except the sales
    pitch was different, and closer to the truth.

    I personally believe that we went to war to
    secure and privatize the oil industry in
    Iraq, and to establish a fim base there as
    a stepping stone to controlling mid east
    oil supplies in total, before other countries
    with voracious oil appetites got the idea.
    But I don’t think it was put quite this way
    to Bush, or at least he was given other,
    ersatz rationales for it, e.g. finish the job,
    avenge the attempt on his father, show his
    family that he’s not the ne’er-do-well that
    they think he is, etc.

    If I’m right, everything about Iraq is a total
    sham. Nobody is telling the truth. It’s truly
    an Orwellian nightmare. Everything is
    double-think. But if I am right, winning means
    securing and privatizing the Iraq oil industry
    and establishing permanent military bases
    there, and that can only be done by “staying
    the course” until the insurgency is quelled
    and relative stability is achieved.

    I don’t think there has ever been a “war” like
    this, where nobody knows why we’re fighting
    it, except the neocon cabal. Does anybody
    really accept the reasons that we were given?
    That we’d have done this if Iraq had virtually
    no oil reserves?

  • My definition of losing in Iraq must be different from Dean’s. I’d say we’ve lost when a full-blown civil war breaks out, which we may be approaching but have not yet reached.

    A full-blown civil war is still avoidable, and worth fighting to prevent. I believe that Congressman Murtha’s proposal addresses this with both the creation of a quick reaction force in the region, and an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.

    On the other hand, Dean’s declaration of defeat does no one any good, whether it’s soldiers in Iraq or Democrats running for election.

  • The Republican attack machine CAN’T NOT attack Dean. It’s what they do.

    Hagel is one of them, and Dean isn’t. End of story.

  • ET, Bush finally did define “victory” in the last “strategy for victory” speech. it consisted of three elements: keep the baathists from disrupting iraqi democracy; iraqi forces prepared to defend their country; no terrorist attacks plotted in iraq.

    no, these don’t make sense and they can’t be achieved, but given that it was the first attempt in 2.5 years to define victory, i just wanted to note it.

  • Dean’s remarks were perfect and perfectly timed, coming in the midst of the Republican “Victory in Iraq” campaign, which was kicked off by the president’s unveiling his plan, with accompanying print collateral (the plan itself). More Dems need to come out and state the obvious: there will be no victory in Iraq . . . not by the “coaltion forces” at least.

    All of Bush’s speech’s on how were succeeding in Iraq on every level (militarily, economically, politically) should each be countered by a Democratic reality check. What Dean said is the antithesis of and best tonic for the new propaganda campaign. It should be our mantra.

  • I agree with ET. What does “win” mean? There is no easily defined “win” in this conflict. Which leads me to agree with hark, who reminds us of PNAC’s goals. Why does everyone in these discussions keep forgetting about PNAC? I mean, they are right out front with their goals and plans: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

  • Comments are closed.