OBJECTIVELY PRO-SADDAM?

DEAN: Doesn't Know If Iraq Is Better Off Without Saddam (Hotline, 4/24/03)

[Howard] Dean appeared on "Wolf Blitzer Reports." Some highlights:

Asked if Iraqis are better off without Saddam: "We don't know that yet. ... 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."

CNN's Blitzer: "You think it's possible ... that whatever emerges in Iraq could be worse than what they have for decades under Saddam Hussein?"

Dean: "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. ... 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."

So if the Iraqi people are better off, but things are a tad more difficult for us, it's a bad thing? Who are the real imperialists around here? What other peoples should live in totalitarian terror so that they don't annoy us? Posted by Orrin Judd at April 24, 2003 1:24 PM