Politics

Wow — looks like Howard Dean went and pissed everybody off! Here’s why…

BLITZER: But governor, nobody — nobody disagrees there are going to be problems. But aren’t the people of Iraq so much better off now without Saddam Hussein on their back?

DEAN: We don’t know that yet. We don’t know that yet, Wolf. We still have a country whose city is mostly without electricity. We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear governance. We have a major city without clear governance. We don’t know yet, and until we do…

But here’s the part that everybody seeems to be conveniently ignoring:

BLITZER: You think it’s possible — excuse me for interrupting — that whatever emerges in Iraq could be worse than what they have for decades under Saddam Hussein?

DEAN: I do, I do. We have to think of this from an American perspective not an Iraqi perspective. The reason the president gave for going into Iraq which I disagree with is Iraq was a security threat to the United States. I don’t believe Saddam was. But I believe a fundamentalist Islamic regime would be. That we have to guard against, that may be very, very difficult. I think the jury is out in terms of what we’ve created. The other thing is, you have to remember that this president has now created a new American foreign policy a preemptive doctrine. And I think that’s going to cause America some serious trouble down the line, too. I don’t regret my opposition to the war, I think in the long term interest of the United States, we have yet to see whether the war is going to be successful or not.

Context is always important, and much as I use the ‘soundbite’ style of quoting when I’m grabbing snippets for this weblog, I do try to ensure that I’m not taking quotes out of context in order to make a point. Dean, in my opinion, has a very good point here.

We know that Saddam was a “bad man,” and that his regime was hardly a role model to be looked up to and followed. We know that atrocities were comitted. What we don’t know yet is what is going to happen now. It’s looking more and more like more hardline political groups are gaining power, and stand a good chance of heavily influencing Iraq in the months and years to come. We may very well have traded one sadistic regime for another, no matter what Bush tries to assure us.

We hope that that doesn’t turn out to be the case. But the jury’s still out, and the deliberations don’t look very good right now.

Why’d we go to war with Iraq again?

First it was to find and destroy all of Saddam’s WMDs, but we can’t find any.

Then it was to find and destroy Saddam, but we can’t find him.

Then it was to liberate the Iraqi people and install a new, democratic government in Iraq — only that new goverment is looking like it might not be very friendly to the US:

As Iraqi Shiite demands for a dominant role in Iraq’s future mount, Bush administration officials say they underestimated the Shiites’ organizational strength and are unprepared to prevent the rise of an anti-American, Islamic fundamentalist government in the country.

The burst of Shiite power — as demonstrated by the hundreds of thousands who made a long-banned pilgrimage to the holy city of Karbala yesterday — has U.S. officials looking for allies in the struggle to fill the power vacuum left by the downfall of Saddam Hussein.

“It is a complex equation, and the U.S. government is ill-equipped to figure out how this is going to shake out,” a State Department official said. “I don’t think anyone took a step backward and asked, ‘What are we looking for?’ The focus was on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.”

We’re on a roll, folks. It’s just not going where the powers that be expected it to.

(via Tom Tomorrow)

Quite simply, Senator Rick Santorum needs to go.

Santorum on homosexuality, as quoted in the Times Leader:

If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.

Santorum on abuse in the clergy, as quoted in the San Francisco Gate:

You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it’s in the privacy of your own home, this “right to privacy,” then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it’s private, as long as it’s consensual, then don’t be surprised what you get. […] In this case, what we’re talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We’re not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We’re talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it’s consensual between people.

Santorum on same-sex marriages, from a fundraising letter:

…this may truly be the most important letter I ever write you. […] I am writing to…implore you to support the work Matt is doing through Alliance for Marriage…to draft an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect the holy sacrament of marriage from those who would legalize same-sex “marriage”. […] If we don’t protect marriage, we risk the Supreme Court deciding the fate of marriage like they decided the fate of our unborn children in Roe V. Wade.

Lots of good commentary from Daily Kos (here, here and here) and Atrios (here, here, here and here).

Remember diagramming sentences in your high school or college English classes? All those wierd little diagrams finding the various pieces of the phrases?

Here’s a challenge for you, then:

I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq, discussed in any meeting. The likelihood of it seems to me to be so low that it does not surprise me that it’s never been discussed in my presence. To my knowledge.

Courtesy of our own Donald Rumsfeld.

(via Tom Tomorrow)

An excellent editorial from truthout that covers the same points (plus many more) that I brought up while responding to a recent comment. They do it far better and far more in depth than I do, though.

Bush’s bloviating sermons on morality in this matter fail in the face of the facts. Saddam Hussein would not have existed were it not for the energetic support of the United States. We didn’t defeat Hussein. We fired him. The fact that he was a valued employee for so long, the fact that we averted our eyes as late as 1988 to his use of chemical weapons, the fact that we gave him vital intelligence data so he could more accurately and effectively use those weapons, and the fact that we gave material assistance via government and private institutions for the creation and promulgation of said weapons, all burst the bubble of righteousness the entire debate has been contained in. Bush can talk all he wants about the evil Saddam Hussein. There is little argument with the appellation of that adjective to that name. Yet it was America who allowed him to become so, and the moral arguments surrounding his firing are indelibly tainted by these sad facts. The Kurds in Halabja who were gassed to death in March of 1988 can level a damning finger of blame as much at America as at Hussein.

(via Tom)

Y’know, Bush probably think’s he’s a pretty durn good politician. Got himself elected President of this here country and all. Too bad Syria just seriously one-upped him…

And while Iraq wielded the propaganda tool clumsily, Syria is proving a far better foe. It’s latest move, tactically brilliant, is to introduce a Security Council resolution calling for the elimination of all WMDs in the Middle East.

The move comes as some in the US side scream about Syria’s alleged WMDs. Thus Syria’s move is nothing short of genius. If the US is truly serious about ridding the Middle East of WMDs, it should have no problem endorsing a resolution that would compell Syria to disarm. Right?

Wrong. The resolution would have the (intentional) effect of forcing Israel to surrender its nuclear arsenal — a course of action Israel would never accept. And the US, Israel’s most loyal ally, will thus be forced to veto the resolution.

So picture this — the US vetoing a resolution calling for the banning of all WMDs from the Middle East. In one fell swoop, Syria has negated the charges of WMDs against it, exposed the US’s hypocrisy on WMDs (our allies can have them, everyone else can’t), solidified its leadership of the Arab world, and forced the US to veto a seemingly common sense resolution, after blasting France and Russia for threatening vetoes on Iraq.

(via Daily Kos)

Update:

Upon preview, it appears that the Reuters article linked to in the Daily Kos’ post doesn’t say anything about this resolution. Was it edited out after the Kos made their post, or did they mis-link? I’ll try to find another link…

Second update:

Google News to the rescue! Islam-Online: Syria To Submit Resolution On WMDs To Security Council.

Anger Managment Course’s rundown of claims made by the pro- and anti-war camps prior to hostilities, and how they seem to be panning out so far.

Final score: pro-war, -7 out of 7, anti-war, +2 out of 6. Sounds about right to me.