DEAN: LOSING IT

Just when I thought he’d realized he had to start appealing to someone other than most irate Democratic primary voters, Howard Dean once again goes off the deep end:

Yahoo! News – Dean Says America Not Safer After Capture

Anti-war candidate Howard Dean said Monday “the capture of Saddam has not made America safer,” directly contradicting President Bush and drawing the wrath of two Democratic presidential rivals.

Dean and several Democratic hopefuls sought to burnish their foreign policy credentials, offering prescriptions for U.S. policy toward the Middle East, North Korea, China and the global war on terrorism. Bush overshadowed the field, declaring at a White House news conference that America’s “peace and security” were heightened by the apprehension of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, Rep. Dick Gephardt, Sen. John Edwards, Sen. John Kerry and Dean promised that, if elected, they would work closely with allies to share the costs and risks of fighting terrorism. They agreed that Saddam’s capture gives Bush a chance to improve tattered relations.

A forceful proponent of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, said Dean is in a “spider hole of denial,” a reference to Saddam’s ignominious hideout and Dean’s assessment of the capture’s impact.

Kerry said the front-runner’s speech “is still more proof that all the advisers in the world can’t give Howard Dean the military and foreign policy experience, leadership skills, or diplomatic temperament necessary to lead this country through dangerous times.”

No joke. It’s one thing to argue that we could have expended our resources more wisely, it’s quite another to argue that a world without Saddam Hussein controlling one of the most significant countries in one of the most significant regions of the world isn’t safer for American interests. And the charge that the Administration hasn’t gone after al Qaeda is absurd on its face.

In separate addresses, Dean, Edwards and Clark also took aim at Bush by saying the United States must pay more attention to al-Qaida, the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11 attacks. All three suggested that the illicit spread of nuclear weaponry is a greater threat to the United States than Saddam ever was.

“We should be exercising every option we have to stop the spread of deadly weapons before war becomes our only option,” Edwards said in a speech in Iowa, site of the Jan. 19 caucuses.

Dean and Edwards pledged to triple funds used to secure Russia’s nuclear arsenal, amid fears about its security since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Edwards and Clark threatened sanctions against nations that seek weapons of mass destruction in defiance of international accords.

In the first presidential election since the Sept. 11 attacks, national security looms large, a sharp change from the post-Cold War emphasis on domestic issues. Democrats need to show they are tough on terrorism, not just on Bush.

“Our most important challenge will be to address the most dangerous threat of all: catastrophic terrorism using weapons of mass destruction,” Dean said in his speech to the Pacific Council in Los Angeles. “Here, where the stakes are highest, the current administration has, remarkably, done the least.”

The capture of Saddam posed a political problem for Dean, whose candidacy has been fueled by his opposition to the war. The former Vermont governor did not back away from his stance, and argued that Saddam’s capture alone won’t secure America unless Bush or the next president takes a broader approach to fighting terrorism.

“The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will keep our soldiers in Iraq and around the world safer,” Dean said. “But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.”

Later, in a question-and-answer session, he added, “Saddam is a frightful person and I’m delighted that he’s gone. But there are many frightful people in the world.”

Sensitive to criticism that his foreign policy record is thin, Dean pledged to bolster U.S. troops, particularly terrorism-fighting special forces, and U.S. intelligence. He faulted Bush for failing to deal with North Korea, saying, “this president is responsible for the fact that North Korea has become a nuclear power.”

This is just insane. If Dean doesn’t backtrack very soon, he’s going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Even the Democratic nominating electorate doesn’t want to hear this kind of nonsense.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2004
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Hal says:

    If I didn’t know you better, I would swear you’re starting to sound shrill.

    BTW, this is what elections are for. I know the CW is that Bush wants to run against Dean, and lord knows we’d hate to disapoint him.

  2. Paul says:

    heh- Why will Dean lose? He has said any number of purely delusional things and the Dems just love him.

    The whack job left now controls the party.

    I’ve seen no evidence that Dean will suffer any ill effects in the primary with this behavior. So far, the more delusional he gets the more the Dems love him.

  3. Hal says:

    As I’ve said before, laugh while you can Paul.