The Menace

Howard Dean knows the perils of trying to have it both ways on Iraq. After all, he has spent the last year clobbering John Kerry for supporting war in the Senate while denouncing it on the campaign trail. So imagine Dean's surprise when, at the October 9 Democratic debate in Phoenix, Dennis Kucinich turned the charge against him. "This morning, in The New York Times, wouldn't take a position on the eighty-seven billion dollars, and the governor says that he's still for keeping seventy thousand troops in Iraq," said Kucinich. "Now, it's either right or wrong. If we're wrong to be there, as I believe we are, we should get our troops out." <snip> Today, however, the debate has largely shifted from war to postwar. Dean and other leading Democrats are calling the Iraq occupation a disaster that is breaking the bank, poisoning America's reputation around the world, and sending young men and women home in body bags. To which Kucinich asks a logical question: If you think the postwar is so bad, why not bring Americans home?

None of the leading Democrats want to withdraw from Iraq, but their refusal to plausibly answer Kucinich's question may be pushing them in that direction. Kerry, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, and--more ambiguously--Dean, all opposed President Bush's $87 billion reconstruction request because they said he lacked a plan to win the peace in Iraq. But that's not true. Bush does have a plan, even if he's not quite honest about it: It's for the United States to stabilize and rebuild Iraq largely alone, by pouring in money and handing over security to hastily trained Iraqi forces. The Democratic candidates may dislike that strategy, but it is they who have no practical alternative.

<snip>

Opposing Bush's reconstruction plan, and lacking a realistic one of their own, the Democratic candidates are vulnerable to Kucinich's logic. After all, if you don't have a strategy for winning the peace in Iraq, why stay? Democratic public opinion is clearly moving in this direction. A CBS poll in late August found that 53 percent of Democrats wanted the United States to either increase troop levels in Iraq or hold them steady, versus 37 percent who wanted to decrease the number. By last week, that figure had reversed itself. In a late October Washington Post/ABC News poll, 54 percent of Democrats said the "U.S. should withdraw forces from Iraq to avoid casualties," while only 40 percent wanted to keep them there.

<snip>

The unhappy truth is that, by mishandling postwar Iraq and alienating much of the world, the Bush administration has left the United States with two bad options: rebuild Iraq largely alone, at great cost in money and lives (and with no guarantee of success), or withdraw largely alone, in a Vietnam-like defeat. The leading Democratic presidential contenders, who like most candidates hate tough choices, are trying to pretend they don't have to make one. But the longer they oppose the Bush reconstruction strategy, the more they will find themselves pushed toward the alternative, which is no reconstruction at all. On Iraq, Kucinich now represents the Democratic vanguard. Unless the other candidates face reality, he could soon represent the Democratic mainstream.

Peter Beinart is the editor of TNR.
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20031117&s=trb111703

(Free subscription for 14 days)

Peter Beinart on why it happened

Coming home last Friday night, I stumbled upon a candlelight vigil.
Hundreds of my Dupont Circle neighbors were walking gravely down Q
Street, holding signs and dispensing leaflets. As I stopped to watch, a
man pulled up on his bicycle, surveyed the scene, and began to scream.
"Why don't you just commit suicide?" he yelled at the marchers. A
policeman rushed over and tried to quiet him down: "None of that," he
said, "this is a vigil. No politics." "My brother died in New York,"
the man answered, "and these fuckers..." And then he sped off.

But the policeman was wrong. What the bicyclist had noticed was that
the placards all said things like, "No Eye for an Eye," and "No More
War." A leaflet demanded "No further U.S. violence." ("Further," a nice
touch.) The cop's "no politics" plea was wishful thinking. In fact,
this country's days-long hiatus from politics is already over. And the
political debate that will frame the coming weeks is clear: Has America
oppressed the Muslim world? Or, stated differently, does America have
the moral authority to go to war?

The Nation answered almost immediately. "his is not really the war
of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in
the coming days," wrote Robert Fisk in the magazine's October 1 issue.
"It is also about US missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US
helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and
American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a
Lebanese militia--paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally--hacking
and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." In other
words, it's about America's support for Israel.

The left has proved remarkably creative over the years at blaming
virtually any Middle Eastern malfeasance--from Iraq's invasion of
Kuwait to repression in the Arab world--on the Jewish State. And Fisk
continues that tradition, suggesting that the "hacking and raping and
murdering" at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps helped provoke last
week's attacks--even though Sabra and Shatila took place in 1982, when
Osama bin Laden had not yet turned against the U.S. and was actually
fighting side by side with the CIA in Afghanistan. (Fisk further
illustrates his idiosyncratic theory of history when he writes, "Our
broken promises, perhaps even our destruction of the Ottoman Empire,
led inevitably to this tragedy.")

more....................

http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/2001III/msg03270.html

Here's a better quote about his views on the Left and War.

---

If Fisk and The Nation really want to argue that America brought the
World Trade Center attack on itself, they shouldn't delude themselves.
They are not defending the Palestinians' right to a state or the
Iraqis' right to medicine. They are defending a Muslim's right not to
live with a non-Muslim. And in so doing they are renouncing this
country's most sacred principles--principles that saved countless
Muslim lives in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. When the left assembles
at its candlelight vigils and peace marches in the coming weeks, let it
proclaim this honestly. And other Americans will survey the scene, and
scream.

I want to give your post some thought and also, I'm a little distracted now, talking with my first husband about war, death, and love. Thank you for responding. My scan of your post piqued my interest. Be back soon :)

I do think Kucinich is one hell of a great candidate! So don't take that as an attack on him. People just need to be aware of TNR's shift over the last few years.

Heck, I've seen some positive things from TNR on Dean (or at least I think I have), but I won't give them the time of the day since they're shifted.

:hi:

:hi: thanks.

I love that grin of his.

:hi:

:-)

their shift just happened to coincide with the Israel/Palestine mess. They are still socially liberal which is how I'm seeing many Democrats these days- social liberals with no anchor in the seas of progressive thought- just like Lieberman.

I was frankly surprised to see that article in the TNR but it's an honest, astute analysis and I respect them for it. The Palestinian issue is going to define the world for years to come and I hope TNR drops its neo-liberal stance in time to regain the credibility they used to have.

Keph, I know you from reading your posts from years gone past- can you tell me why you personally chose to back Dean over Kucinich? I feel so alone among many of my DU friends because I can't understand the devotion and belief in Dean. I would appreciate if you wouldn't mind telling me why you, who are someone I have immense respect for, favor Dean.

Peace and thanks

Oh and when are you headed out here on that road trip?

had a large part in it. Not his changing of the postion...just that he held that view for so long. I respect him for it and understand he has a consistent life belief, but that's just hitting too close to home for me.

I'm also not as much of a anti-war person as Kucinich. I've always tended to call myself an owl and never a dove. I think Kucinich is a dove through and through. Very honorable, but not what I think is right at this time. I see Dean as an owl too, so it fits me a bit more.

I don't really have devotion or belief in Dean--I have it in the people that I've met who support him.

Really, it's been much of a toss-up for me. Things could have turned out very differently with Dean being the underdog and Kucinich being the front runner.

It's hard for me to qualify it, mainly because I'm voting and supporting anyone who was against the Iraq resolution in the primary. Anyone who was foolish enough to be fooled by Bush when I could see through him doesn't deserve my vote.

I guess I'm not answering your question. I guess it comes to feelings. A lot of people talk about how Kucinich inspires them...well, Dean does the same thing for me. It's a hard thing to explain.

Now, I can explain the reasons why I won't vote for someone, but since I don't have that feeling for Clark, Kucinich, and Braun (Sharpton lost me with his baseless attack on Dean), it's hard for me to explain why one or the other.

Still planning that road trip! I may have to wait until Spring or Summer though.

:hi:

Is that Dean always seems to be a step ahead of the rest of the candiates. His team is always thinking ahead and it impresses me. I guess as someone who does political work on the internet, that really makes me go "wow!" when I see what they've been doing (and most of the other candidates copy ;-) )

I think we need more of a dove than an owl now to prove to a hateful world just how penitent we are any my fear with Dean is that he's got bigger talons than he's letting on and I forsee a Clinton-style presidency with him where the wars would be cleverly spun (Yugoslavia) or just not discussed (the 8 year daily bombings of Iraq). I'm still really upset over that and was alarmed at what Dean had to say about Syria and Iran but since you are more of an owl than I, I do respect your choice because you are fully aware of who you're voting for and why.

I think I'm more ideologically "pure" (as one Nader-hating DU poster puts it ;)) and cynical at the same time.

I'm glad Dean inspires you and you don't have to explain. Kucinich inspires me and moves me the same way. Last night I listened to him speak about the war to push genetically modified foods on an unsuspecting public and a suspecting world and was touched to my soul.

Have you ever seen Kucinich in person? I am going to go see Dean in person to see if I can understand because I desperately need to like a few others besides Kucinich otherwise I won't be able to vote Dem and that would kill me!

:toast: to your integrity!

But, as far as I know, he hasn't been in Indianapolis.

A :toast: right back at you!

Talks to the heart. Thanks though khep. :beer: *underaged but Kleeb is in Germany so ha!* Thanks again though.

I too am more of a dove so that could be it too khep, but youre a wise owl :D.

it has a huge, front page picture of Dean's campaign manager under the headline 'The Man Who Revolutionized Campaign Fundraising," or something like that. I'd say that's pretty supportive.

That's when they start hitting you with Sullivan and some other weird shit. Yeah, they have to write some pro-Demo pieces each issue, but there's usually a strange smell to the best of them. That's why I'd never quote TNR unless it was by mistake.

...there is no reason to stay there, no legitimate reason anyway. If the policy was a fraud undertaken for political expediency without justification or prospect of success, why would you continue the policy after it is exposed as such? So far about 2600 American casualties and 156 Billion commited and it is getting worse there every day.

What makes us think we can govern Iraq better than the Iraqis? The profiteering by defense contractors? The army that can't speak the language and doesn't have a clue what is going on around them? The permanent military bases in the new colony? The prospect of taking Opec apart and seizing all the oil we want? The vision of a future in which America and Israel do not have to face viable, sovereign Islamic states who look out for their own material and political interests instead of caving in to corrupt corporate carpetbaggers with bribes?

Some politicians now want to get all moralistic about why our Army should stay there after supporting a completely illegal invasion. The process of stopping the killing cannot even begin until our Armed forces leave. Civil war may break out into the open afterwards and more will die. But there is a civil war taking place right now anyway and our presence only prolongs it. We can't change it, it is unjustified chauvinism and wishful thinking to think we can.

The immaturity of the American people on this score is truly amazing. It is like a person guilty of homicide thinking he can make it right. What to make it right? Put our current leaders on trial. Pay reparations. Rebuild the country. But get the armed forces out of there.

I like that -- coming from TNR, it's a compliment. :D

:evilgrin:

needs to get one of those Dennis the Menace pullovers, an ex girl friend knitted me one about 20 years ago. they are the height of sheek (sp?).

Tell her to knit you two and I will be your new best friend! ;)

peace

makes sense to me. DK:

People are asking, is there a way out? I believe there is. I am writing to share with you a plan that will get the UN in Iraq and the US out. This plan could bring the troops home by New Year’s day, it will cost much less than the President’s, and it will increase American security.

The President must go to the UN and announce the US intention to hand over all administrative and security responsibilities to the UN. The UN would help Iraqis move quickly toward self-determination.
The UN, not the US, will administer Iraq’s oil revenues. It will be necessary to renounce clearly and unequivocally any interest in controlling Iraq’s oil resources.
The UN will administer contracts to repair Iraq. War profiteering will no longer be practiced by the White House. It will be necessary to suspend all reconstruction contracts and close the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, because of the suspicion caused by the sweetheart deals that the Administration has given to large American corporations. In its place, the UN would help Iraqis administer funds to employ Iraqis to repair the damage from the invasion.

http://www.kucinich.us/statements.htm#100903