Howard Dean now says that the US can't win in Iraq. Often, when the right says that politicians who disagree with the war are hurting moral, I disagree. In this case, I can't agree more. The Chairman of the Democratic Party is telling our troops and the American people that the cause is lost. That is absolutely disgraceful! Any party that would allow itself to be led by such a fool is not a party that I can ever be associated with. This is also the kind of talk that will turn off most of the American people to the Democrats yet again.
There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that we are WINNING in Iraq. Two votes have been held. A constitution has been ratified. More Iraqi troops are able to stand on their own each day. Yes, 2,000 US soldiers have died. If you compare that to any other war in the history of the US, however, that is a miniscule number. Dean is rooting against US victory because it would signal a victory for Bush. Disgusting.
And another thing, if we pull out now, as some Democrats are suggesting, who will take responsibility for the death and destruction that would follow? It certainly wouldn't be Howard Dean. As his own ideas led to the deaths of perhaps millions, Dean would again try to blame Bush. The Dems proclaim they are the party that cares about people. Why do they fail to care about all of the Iraqis that will perish if their plans are followed?
Here is the article:
(SAN ANTONIO) -- Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.
Dean made his comments in an interview on WOAI Radio in San Antonio.
"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."
Dean says the Democrat position on the war is 'coalescing,' and is likely to include several proposals.
"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.
Dean didn't specify which country the US forces would deploy to, but he said he would like to see the entire process completed within two years. He said the Democrat proposal is not a 'withdrawal,' but rather a 'strategic redeployment' of U.S. forces.
"The White House wants us to have a permanent commitment to Iraq. This is an Iraqi problem. President Bush got rid of Saddam Hussein and that was a great thing, but that could have been done in a very different way. But now that we're there we need to figure out how to leave. 80% of Iraqis want us to leave, and it's their country."
Dean also compared the controversy over pre-war intelligence to the Watergate scandal which brought down Richard Nixon's presidency in 1974.
"What we see today is very much like what was going in Watergate," Dean said. "It turns out there is a lot of good evidence that President Bush did not tell the truth when he was asking Congress for the power to go to war. The President said last week that Congress saw the same intelligence that he did in making the decision to go to war, and that is flat out wrong. The President withheld some intelligence from the Senate Intelligence Committee. He withheld the report from the CIA that in fact there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (in Iraq), that they did not have a nuclear program. They (the White House) selectively gave intelligence to the United States Senate and the United States Congress and got them to give the go ahead to attack these people."