August 15, 2005

YOU JUST KNOW HE WANTS TO RUN AWAY AND JOIN THE CRAWFORD CIRCUS:

Dean's latest (Greg Pierce, August 15, 2005, Washington Times)

Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee chairman who was the hero of his party's anti-war wing before his gaffe-prone 2004 presidential candidacy crashed and burned in Iowa, still doesn't think the Iraqis are better off with dictator Saddam Hussein out of power and in prison.

Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation" yesterday, the fiery former Vermont governor said, "It looks like today, and this could change, as of today it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq."

At some point you have to wonder if he has a bunch of Sunni Ba'athist friends.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 15, 2005 8:14 PM
Comments

Actually, the number one absolute smartest thing Howard Dean could do to improve his party's standing would be to go to Iraq for about a mont, traveling around and meeting with the soldiers he professes to love and support. And meeting with Iraqis, too. Any chance of that?

Hillary did her 'listening' tour; what about Howard? Going to lefty get-togethers in Red states and being told he isn't aggressive enough by Ed Schultz just doesn't cut it.

Posted by: jim hamlen at August 16, 2005 8:29 AM

He doesn't. They have principles.

Posted by: Vic Havens at August 16, 2005 11:00 AM

With out wanting to offer any solace to the likes of an idiot like Dean, today's WSJ has an article that discusses how his statement might come to be true.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007112

What if we really DO have to destroy this childish and backward religion? What if it can't be 'moderated?

Posted by: Bruno at August 16, 2005 11:48 AM

I must point out that not everyone who opposed the war did so for reasons identical to the moonbats. Some did state that it would play into the hands of the Iranians.

And people like Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch have always predicted that the end result of this would be an Islamic Republic where women and Christian minorities would be less protected than they were under Hussein.

At this point it's hard to tell how good or bad it'll be.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at August 16, 2005 12:00 PM

The only people in Iraq who were 'protected' were those who prostrated themselves before Saddam. And even that wasn't enough for his paranoid mind. The safest people were those who lived like robots, and kept their faces downcast all the time.

If he murdered 350,000 'enemies' in 25 years, that is about 14,000 a year. Give Iraq a nominal population of 22 million - the comparable number in the US (with a nominal population of 250 million) would be 160,000 a year, for a total of 4 million. And those numbers are probably too low.

There was no protection.

Posted by: jim hamlen at August 16, 2005 12:12 PM

Chris:

Hatred of Iran is moonbatty.

Posted by: oj at August 16, 2005 12:29 PM

"Hatred of Iran" or "Hatred of the Iranian government"? I could agree with the first statement, but I'd really like to see arguments for the latter being "moonbatty." Or are they one and the same? Would the same arguments be made if "Cuba" was substituted for "Iran", for example?

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at August 16, 2005 11:01 PM

Castro never held an election.

Posted by: oj at August 16, 2005 11:59 PM
« A HOSPICE WITHOUT PAINKILLERS?: | Main | SOUND THE CHARGE AND BEAT A RETREAT: »