« Finding the roots of my former faith | Main | Sunday Blogroll--Carla plays catch-up »

February 26, 2006

Howard Dean was right--again

I'm a self-confessed Deaniac. My opinion on Howard Dean is colored with the bias that frankly, I love the guy. He's straightforward. He's direct. And he knows his shit.

Then there's the Howard Dean Bonus: he absolutely grates the nerves of the rightwing establishment in this country. Worse for them--Dean has a sneaky, deliberate and consistent way of being right.

The latest example of Dean's consistent way of being correct comes from Glenn Greenwald:

Howard Dean, December 5, 2005

Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years. . . .

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Now--the guy who essentially founded conservatism, William F. Buckley,is on the Dean wagon when it comes to Iraq:

William F. Buckley, Jr. in The National Review, yesterday

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. . . .

Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. . . . .

[Bush] will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies. Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat. . . .

So what do the rightwing Bush apologists decide to do in the face of the founder of conservatism declaring Iraq an unwinnable disaster?

They decide that they aren't really conservatives.

Witness the hysterical ravings of Captain Ed:

Bush 43 is not a conservative in foreign policy, at least since 9/11 taught him that genocidal tyrannies in Southwest Asia could produce immediate and existential threats to the American homeland. He has been much closer to Woodrow Wilson than his father or even Ronald Reagan in his reaction to the world.

Woodrow Wilson and Ronald Reagan? Well, I'll give Ed this--Wilson was no fan of the US Constitution and neither is Bush. Wilson also hated checks and balances and brooked no dissent, imprisoning those who spoke up. But Wilson embraced peace and undertook WWI only after he saw there was absolutely no other choice.

Reagan should have been arrested for stealing from the US Treasury and lying to American people and Congress. So I suppose that parallel is apt. But Reagan had checks and balances--Bush doesn't. Reagan's policies were reigned in by Congress (except the stuff Reagan did without Congress' knowledge). Also, there's a valid argument to be made that Reagan's staff was doing a lot without his knowledge because of the onset of Reagan's alzheimers. So its tough to know how much of the policy was really his.

Ed is wrong. This is conservative. This is what unchecked conservatism leaves in its wake.

Howard is right about that too:(Dean, Meet the Press, May 22, 2005)

But if you look at what's good for America not what's good for the Republican Party, what the Republicans want to do is not good for America. I would argue that it's not very good in the long run for the Republican Party either. You can't cut the minority, especially if the minority is a very large one like 48 percent, totally out of everything.

It's a matter of checks and balances. Look at the terrible things that are going on in Congress today. You have a Republican leader who has been admonished three times by the Ethics Committee, and his response is to get rid of the Ethics Committee or render them inoperable.

Right again, Howard.

Posted by Carla at February 26, 2006 08:21 AM