Monday, November 14, 2005

Howard Dean Is No Pacifist


Dean was the loudest, and the only anti-war candidate in 2004. The image has stuck and for good reason. But his stand has also been slightly misunderstood.
  1. We knew all along it was not Saddam but Osama that was behind 9/11. But a majority of Republicans before the Iraq invasion believed otherwise, because they had bought into the W-Cheney propaganda. In a very recent speech W alluded to the "innocent lives lost on 9/11" when he meant to boost support for the Iraq war effort. That is fundamentally misleading. And he apparently has not changed course.
  2. Not long after Baghdad was seized, it became obvious there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that Saddam was supposed to have had. Looks like Saddam was pulling a W also on his neighbors. As in, don't have it, but talk like you do, they will stay away from you.
  3. W complained on the campaign trail in 2000 about the few cruise missiles that Clinton fired into Iraq after a Saddam plot to assassinate his father while on a visit to Kuwait was found out and foiled. As in, Clinton's response was not enough. Clinton should have done more. The son was angry. Immediately after he got into the White House he made it clear he wanted to do something about Saddam. "He tried to kill my daddy!"
  4. On W's watch both North Korea and Iran have acquired nuclear weapons, or Iran is very close to it. So maybe he is not awfully concerned about the spread of WMDs. And if he is, he does not have the ability, the skill to do the job.
  5. Osama is very much alive and very much active. (3 Bomb Blasts Each: London, Delhi, Jordan)
  6. Colin Powell's presentation at the UN was cooked. Who cooked it?
  7. The intelligence the US Congress looked at was tampered with. Who did the tampering?
  8. Tomland Ridge pulled a security stunt to make sure Kerry did not get a boost after his damn convention in 2004. How irresponsible is that? (Bloomberg: No Mr. Security)
  9. George W and Dick Cheney are both roundabout draft dodgers. You have to look at their brave talk in that light.
  10. The effort in Iraq has cost $200 billion, 2000 American lives, and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.
  11. Iraq today exports terrorists to the entire region.
War is an option, that is why there is a military. But war always has to be the weapon of the very last resort. The very last resort, the utmost last resort. W's war was waged like a weapon of first resort, it was done in such a hurry. The accusation that there was a deliberate misleading of intelligence is serious.

Not only that, the US went into Iraq without a clear strategy in mind. Some in the W administration talk of perhaps being there for a decade. That sounds like a stay strategy.

Go in in a hurry and stay forever. That is not a smart war strategy.

Troops sent out to war by a country have to be supported. But W is not asking for that. He is asking that his critics be silenced, their patriotism be questioned. Is misleading a country into war patriotic? Is not having a clear exit strategy so as to minimize casualties patriotic? Is the idea of snuffing democratic debate and questioning a legitimate inquiry into the most important act by this president patriotic?

It is important for the country to get to the bottom of this so as to better tackle the challenge that the War On Terror is.

Dean was totally behind the US going into Afghanistan, because that was Osama country, and he was behind 9/11. Iraq became a diversion that let Osama slip into god knows where.

Dean is not saying all wars are wrong, he is saying some wars are necessary. But he is saying a war has to be the weapon of last resort, because through a war you put your troops in harm's way. People are going to die. So you better have a very good reason to get into it in the first place. Once you do send the troops in, support them. And Dean supports the troops in Iraq today. He just does not support W. Big difference. And he is concerned the likes of W and Cheney can be so callous about the countdown to war.

Saddam was a bad guy, but that was not the stated reason for the war.

Democracy is a good thing to spread, but that was not the stated reason for the war.

So what went so wrong? Why was the intelligence presented to the Congress so off the mark? So far there seems not to have been a trace of WMD stuff in Iraq.

More importantly, what is the nature of the War On Terror? Is acting like the Al Qaeda is a standing army the best way to wage this war? Is the Al Qaeda weaker today?

Blacks, Hispanics At The Core Of The Democrat Rainbow Coalition


Blacks vote for Democrats in this country like all of them were their cousins. The Democratic Party does not have a more staunch group of supporters. And hence I imagine a high tech boom in Harlem, among other things.

But Bush managed to dent into the Hispanic vote with his mangled Spanish, and that was not good. A Hispanic co-passenger in a bus in Florida once told me when she was at high school her teacher used Bush' Spanish talk as an example of how n-o-t to speak Spanish. Go figure.

But, seriously. There has to be an all-out effort to court the Hispanic vote.
  1. Apply the spentrum/dialogue concept on gay marriage rather than the litmus test concept. (The Spectrum/Dialogue Concept Is Key To Power)
  2. Articulate progressive family values.
  3. Offer progressive, cuttinge edge immigration policy. There can be no room inside the Democratic Party for any hostility to immigrants. And such hostility among the Republicans has to be exposed and fought.
  4. Bi-lingualism.
  5. Quality public education, universal health insurance for all children on US soil.
  6. Increases in college financial aid.
  7. Mainstream issues of jobs and wages. Create jobs. Increase the minimum wage. Introduce micro credit in the most destitute neighborhoods, and urban renewal programs, and economic empowerment zones.
  8. In a city like New York, non-citizens should be allowed to vote. No taxation without representation.
  9. A major emphasis on US-Mexico relations.
  10. Help with institution buliding in the young democracies in Latin America.
  11. Fight voter intimidation of the ethnic minorities with the passion of a civil rights movement.
  12. Tough on hate crimes. Tough on hate speech.
  13. Howard Dean should take a crash course in Spanish. You don't have to get fluent, but you do have to be able to meet and greet. I will do it with you.
  14. Deaniacs, let it be a fashion statement. Let's all of us learn at least some Spanish.
These are just some of the early stage thoughts. I am sure there are many more. And even these need to be cultivated.

Dick Morris: "The biggest reason for Bush's victory was that he finally cracked the Democratic stranglehold on the Hispanic vote. While Gore won 65 percent of the Latino community, holding Bush to a mere 35 percent, Kerry only carried the Hispanic vote by 55-45, paving the way for the Bush victory. Since Hispanics cast 12 percent of the vote in 2004, their 10-point movement to the GOP gave the president an additional 1.2 percent of the national vote. Take a similar amount away from Kerry, and the Latinos gave Bush a 2.4 percent edge in the general election balloting. Since Bush beat Kerry by only 3.1 percent, how important was the Hispanic vote? Vital and crucial. There are two reasons for Bush’s success among Hispanics. The most important seems to be his emphasis on social values issues, particularly his opposition to gay marriage. ...... Bush worked very hard to win the Hispanic votes. He reversed traditional Republican positions opposing the interests of Latinos. He endorsed bilingual education, reversing decades of Republican agitation for English-only policies. He opposed benefit cuts to documented aliens and rejected out of hand the contention that the children of undocumented workers should be denied public education. He even embraced a version of amnesty that permitted illegal immigrants to gain lawful status and eventual citizenship. Bush may have begun to crack the unholy triple alliance of blacks, Hispanics and single women that anchors the political base of the Democratic Party. These three groups accounted for 54 percent of John Kerry’s vote on Tuesday even though they cast only about one-third of the total vote in the election. Bush still lost blacks by 89-11. He lost single women by 64-36 (while carrying married women by 9 points), but his gains among Hispanics permitted him to win the election anyway."

The Hispanic Vote Elects Bush
PUERTO RICO HERALD: Many Hispanic Voters Skeptical On Bush's Promise
Kerry Has Strong Advantage Among Latino Voters (washingtonpost.com)
Hispanic vote key to Bush win
NPR : Kerry Woos Hispanic Vote; Bush Up Next
VDARE.com: 11/10/04 - Bush Didn't Win 44% of Hispanic Vote - The ...
VDARE.com: 12/09/04 - NRO Rebunks Bush’s Hispanic Share Myth
Richard Nadler on Hispanic Vote & Election 2004 on National Review ...
CNN.com - Kerry, Bush, court Hispanic voters - May 5, 2004
Bush, Kerry try to swing Hispanic vote in their direction - 04/13/04