Howard Dean “supposes” the fall of Saddam Hussein is a good thing

John Kerry generated a whole lot of criticism for suggesting we needed “regime change” here in the U.S.

But Wednesday, as the now famous Hussein statue was being torn from its foundation, Howard Dean made a comment that seems at least as bad as Kerry’s. Speaking at a forum hosted by the Children’s Defense Fund, Dean shared his thoughts on the military’s progress in Iraq.

“We need to contain Saddam, we should have contained Saddam,” Dean said. “We got rid of him. I suppose that’s a good thing.”

Um, governor? You “suppose” Hussein’s fall is a good thing?

I know that Dean has made great headway as a candidate based on his opposition to the war. His aggressive posturing against the invasion has done wonders for his poll numbers and fundraising. But I thought there was near unanimity on both sides of aisle before the war that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous, vicious dictator. Opposition to the war, at least from Dean, had nothing to do with defending Hussein; it had everything to do with disagreement with Bush’s “preemption” doctrine and the administration’s departure from working with the U.N.

With that in mind, I thought everyone was glad to see Hussein go. I’ve objected to the war for a variety of reasons, and like Dean, I worry about the consequences (short and long term) of this invasion. But even I was unconditionally happy to see Hussein’s regime fall.

Concluding that Hussein’s departure is a “supposedly” good thing strikes me as an incredibly dumb thing to say. It’s the kind of remark the Republicans will hammer Dean relentlessly with should he get the nomination.

The Dean/McGovern analogies are getting more apt all the time.