L!ve From > DC

Howard Dean's deceptive morality

Day 2 of the Democratic Convention in Boston: Rich Lowry unpacks Howard Dean's speech at the DNC Convention.

Dean claimed he wanted "to see America restored as the moral leader of the world."

Was it moral to impose draconian sanctions on 22 million Iraqis--the most advanced Arab society--in order to contain their unelected leader, Saddam Hussein? Over the summer, I posed this question to numerous interns--they hail from Stanford, Harvard, Tufts, Boston College--working for Kerry's re-election.

A surprising number of them didn't even know that nearly a million Iraqis, mostly kids, perished as a result of the US-backed UN embargo.

But during the 12-year period when the sanctions were in force, most antiwar liberals like Howard Dean were assailing this low-intensity, sneaky war. In 2002, Dean's good friend, David Bonior, D-Mich, former House Majority Leader, famously described the sanctions as "infanticide masquerading as policy". Other liberals have written volumes on how the sanctions on Iraq amounted to collective punishment and were thus a violation of the Geneva Conventions, even as their leader, one Bill Clinton, slowly arrived at the conclusion that the containment strategy was a debacle.

In signing the Iraq Liberation Act (1998), Clinton boldly declared that it was time for a new, democratic Iraq to "rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member," noting that this was "in our interest and that of our allies within the region". Clinton insisted that "the evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."

So when Bush 43 embraced the Iraq Liberation Act, why all this drama from the Democrats? Why now when Saddam and his sons have permanently lost their ability to build WMD or threaten their own people and neighboring countries--now that sanctions on Iraqis have been lifted?

DNC "Snowjob in the Summer" begins: Nice Set, Bland, Predictable Script, Washed up Stars

Clinton's light blue tie on a white shirt--the colors of the Israeli flag--against a light blue set background was a subliminal gesture toward Jewish voters.

Well, perhaps not. But his speech was so distressingly vacuous, it allowed for all kinds of silly thoughts. Until he said this:

"Democrats and Republicans have very different ideas on what choices we should make, rooted in fundamentally different views of how we should meet our common challenges at home and how we should play our roll in the world.

"Democrats want to build an America of shared responsibilities and shared opportunities¿.Republicans believe in an America run by the right people, their people."

So much for the rumor that the tone at this Convention will not be anti-Bush, anti-Republican.

But then, his and Hillary's were the only speeches to escape censorship by a DNC desperately trying to portray a united and positive facade to the proceedings.

Say, when was the last time you heard Clinton say something substantive? I mean, Bush decimated Al Qaeda, ended Clinton's 8-year war with Saddam (which Clinton supports to the chagrin of Kerry), wiped out his recession, disarmed Libya without a shot...and all Bill did tonight was wag an imperiously long finger at those damn Republicans?!

But he did it well.

And if you were watching it on NBC, you got to see Brokaw interview Clinton. This reunion of windbags begged for a SNL reenactment.

Hillary: She shrieked. She feigned sincerity. She projected...panic. There was no heart--she knows that a Kerry win will rule her out until 2020.

Prediction: A week after the convention, Kerry will poll five points under. Keep an eye on Rasmussen.

Voter ignorance benefiting Kerry at polls

A recent (7/20-7/22) poll conducted by Time magazine puts Senator John Kerry (46%) ahead of President Bush (44%) in a three-way race with Ralp Nader. In a two-way, Kerry gets 50%, Bush 45%.

Sounds murky for the Bush team, right?

Not quite.

The same poll shows that voters don't really know John Kerry all that well. 67% reported that they know Bush a great deal, but only 29% could say the same for Kerry.

John Kerry's lead could thus be attributed to his lack of recognition--the fact that voters don't really know much about Kerry--his flip-flops on key issues, for example--could have benefited him at the polls thus far.

But this situation could change once the Bush campaign launches their advertising blitz designed to help voters to get to know the "real" John Kerry.

Indeed a recent ABC news poll shows that John Kerry has lost critical momentum on several key issues versus President Bush--economy, terror, national defense, taxes, healthcare, Iraq, education, and the economy. Most importantly, Kerry has slipped badly on personality attributes--honesty, consistency, and leadership.

His [Kerry's] advantage over Bush as the candidate who better "understands your problems" has shrunk to a virtually insignificant four points; it was 18 points last month. Last month it was Kerry +12 as more honest; now it's Bush +6. And it was Bush +5 on leadership; it's Bush +19 now. The Bush campaign seems to have been effective at drawing Kerry in a more negative personal light.

No wonder they are saying that Kerry will have to give the speech of his lifetime at the Democratic Convention.

In the home stretch, the debates could emerge to be the final and biggest advantage in the Bush team's favor: Kerry's long and less than distinguished Senate record, his post-Vietnam war shennanigans, along with his "mother-may-I" foreign policy agenda, his wooing of Iranian mullahs, his "me-toosim" on the Iraq issue, and his faux conservatism will be ruthlessly rehashed shortly.

On a related note, one key campaign reform measure that deserves immediate introduction is the one-on-one debate between the President and the opposition candidates at the Primaries stage. This could help in reducing advertising costs--particularly on sensational ads which most voters tune out anyway.

People tend to respond to candidates who can communicate their positions in person rather than through surrogates and carefully scripted commercials. Early and frequent debates--say a debate a month beginning January of election year--could help candidates galvanize and swing voters earlier.

Obviously this requires major structural changes to the system, but the current process can only lead to a crisis situation where the undecided center decides it is best to remain quietly on the sidelines.

Moore wants regime change in Australia, UK, Italy

Michael Moore, the lardass behind that piece of fiction miscategorized as a documentary--Fahrenheit 9/11--lashed out at world leaders who disprove his assertion that President Bush is the great divider.

Moore labeled Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a staunch supporter of the US-led mission in Iraq, 'disgraceful' and sporting "half a brain" adding that he hoped F 9/11 would convince Australians to dump Howard. (The Australian response? Fitting, one can honestly say.)

Australia wasn't the only one targeted for regime change by the esteemed Mr. Moore: democratic leaders of Japan, Italy, and Great Britain were all assailed for backing Bush's decision to remove the undemocratic dictator of Iraq and lift sanctions on the Iraqi people.

Responding to a question by a Japanese correspondent, he suggested the Japanese people were being betrayed by their Government's decision to commit 550 troops in the southern Iraqi town of Samawa until December.

"To see you involve yourselves in this way is a sad day," he said. "It's a shameful and disgraceful thing."

He also had harsh words for Mr Blair, who has been Mr Bush's most stalwart ally since the decision was made to remove Saddam Hussein by military force.

"I've been racking my brain, trying to figure out what Tony Blair, an otherwise intelligent man, would be doing hooking himself up with president Bush," he said.

"That is something for science to figure out," he joked.

"Maybe someday, someone could do some examination, put him under hypnosis."

The filmmaker was equally damning in his judgement of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi whose Government decided last month to extend the mandate of the 3,000 Italian troops deployed in Iraq until the end of the year.

"If I were an Italian citizen, leaving this film after two hours, I would be wondering, 'What the hell was (Berlusconi) doing hooking up with George W Bush?'" Moore said.

"This is an embarrassment to Italy, and the sooner that there's regime change in Rome, all the better," he added.

Moore's movie does not reveal the hidden costs of NOT going to war--over 10 years, the containment policy would have cost $150 billion--most of this toward maintaining troops in the Middle East--and upto a million Iraqi lives (through sanctions).

Bush ended, not started, the Iraq war

Bush 43 did not start a war with Saddam. In fact, he finished a disastrous, long-drawn, low-intensity war that he inherited from previous administrations--a war that began when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990.

In response to that aggression, Washington dispatched 600,000 US troops (42% of military personnel) to the Persian Gulf to liberate Kuwait, which, in a recent court appearance, Saddam claimed as belonging to Iraq.

In 1991, the US led coalition comprehensively routed Saddam's forces and forced his withdrawal from Kuwait. Nearly 300 Americans lost their lives to that war. Instead of overthrowing the Iraqi dictator, however, the US, under pressure from the UN, settled on his "containment".

Thus began a low-intensity war that claimed nearly a million Iraqi lives after the declaration of end of combat.

The goal of containment was to bring about a demise of the Hussein regime. Containment resulted in Iraq losing its sovereignty. The UN imposed a draconian embargo, controlled Iraq's trade, oil revenues, and territory. "No Fly Zones" intended to thwart another military advance by Saddam and to protect the Kurds and the Shiites split Iraq into three parts, two of which Saddam did not fully control.

American and British air strikes all over Iraq were a routine occurrence.

In 1998, Bush 41 wrote a piece for Time explaining his reasons for leaving Saddam in power: "Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

But since defeating Saddam in January 1991, American taxpayers have unwittingly spent an estimated $10-$30 billion dollars annually (that's $120 billion-plus over a 12-year period) on securing the postwar Persian Gulf environment. This included the cost of stationing on-shore active troops, most of them in Saudi Arabia, much to the resentment of local populations. Osama Bin Laden, who opposed the presence of armed infidels on Arab soil, exploited the issues of Iraq sanctions and foreign troops to recruit thousands of jihadists.

In tabulating the costs and benefits of "containment" we cannot, in good conscience, ignore the million or so Iraqis that perished due to the sanctions regime or the 19 Americans killed when a suicide bomber struck their barracks in Al Khobar in 1996.

This (1991-2003) was no peace. This was a unique, under-the-radar, under-reported war that inadvertently hurt the majority of Iraqis and sourced widespread anti-Americanism in the region.

March 2003 marked a new phase in this conflict--the military action, dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), was undertaken to end the two regimes--Saddam Hussein's and the UN sanctions--that had collectively brought much misery to so many Iraqis.

By removing Saddam, the Bush administration reversed the failed Iraq policy they had inherited. The White House calculated that ten more years of containment would have cost American taxpayers in excess of $100 billion dollars. During this, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would have been consumed by Saddam and the sanctions.

It wouldn't have ended with Saddam. After his passing, the world would then have contended with his sons, who by all accounts were much worse. This was a maniacal family that was addicted to power, domination, and WMD. Iraq would have become another North Korea.

The other option--lifting sanctions--was not feasible. An unfettered Saddam would have quickly rearmed (purchasing weapons from his reliable suppliers Russia, France, and China) and resumed WMD production.

It was thus more prudent to eliminate the Iraqi dictator (and his sons) and spare innocent Iraqis needless grief, as President Clinton noted when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act (1998).

Through OIF, President Bush brought about a political end state that was always the original goal of the 12-year long containment policy—the end of the Saddam Hussein regime.

The systematic weakening of Saddam during the 90s had created a window of opportunity to rid the world of the Iraqi dictator and the Bush team took full advantage of it.

Hillary 2020

A John Kerry win in November followed by a successful first term will shut Hillary out until 2020. In this hypothetical scenario, Kerry will win a second term in 2008 and will be followed by John Edwards. Factor in two terms for Edwards, giving Hillary a shot in 2020.

It will be a shot taken with the burden of 20 years in the Senate--unless Hillary plays her cards wisely and runs for and wins a term or two as governor and gets some "real" administrative experience.

"Say, is it too late to flip this ticket?"

Finally, some dismay from the minority community at Kerry.

NAACP, Minorities, Women: Where is the outrage at Kerry?

John Edwards--he's good looking, has great hair, a Georgetown mansion, cute kids.

So what's wrong?

He ain't black. Or Hispanic. Or female. Or gay.

A party that likes to describe itself as progressive has just admitted that liberalism doesn't deliver a Presidential election.

There is not much to read into this choice. Edwards brings a very particular brand of sex appeal and charisma to the ticket. Democrats were obviously petrified about letting Kerry run with another perceived dullard (like Gephardt).

This is not your grandfather's DNC, which wasn't ashamed to field a wheelchair-bound FDR or an honest, straight-speaking character like Truman.

It was almost inevitable that Kerry chose Edwards. Throughout the summer, the Senator from Mass. enjoyed decent polling numbers primarily because most Democratic supporters knew that Edwards was going to be on the ticket. A Kerry-Edwards platform was being discussed in January. The DNC could not risk alienating the Edwards crowd,

"In any case, a black candidate or a woman doesn't stand a chance," a Kerry insider told me last week explaining that an alternative candidate could have aliented some of the conservative moderates and undecideds.

The alternative--it didn't have to be Sharpton or Mosley-Braun--however, could have given the Democrats a welcome dose of credibility, elevating their superficial platform to the realm of greatness.

Predictably, the Kerry camp has wasted little time in directing some in the black community to put the best spin on their VP choice: Edwards, it is being argued, is "ENERGIZING" for blacks.

"No doubt about it," said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). "More so than anyone, [Mr. Edwards] is able to excite broad cross-sections of people with regard to his message of building one America."

At least Mr. Cummings has the courage to reveal that his first choice was Howard Dean.

This faux triumphalism doesn't convince the reliably reasonable Armstrong Williams. The idea that anyone would conclude that black people have been energized by Mr. Edwards is nonsense, he said, calling the choice "offensive."

"No, it has not energized anyone and, in fact, a lot of blacks are upset a black vice presidential candidate wasn't even considered," Mr. Williams said. "There are black candidates out there who are far more qualified and have paid their dues."

Kerry-Edwards: What bounce?

Earlier I gave a couple of reasons why the double-digit lead predicted by Kerry supporters has not materialized.

CNN's Bill Schneider is predicting that Kerry-Edwards will get a boost shortly after the Democratic National Convention--which is less than two weeks from now. But, he says, the bounce may amount to nothing in August once Americans start tuning into the Olympics.

The games will fade into the RNC convention at the end of August, positioning Bush for a strike back, notes Schneider.

We'll see. I find it interesting that the more people are exposed to John Kerry, the less they actually know about him.

Kerry pollster Mark Mellman said Wednesday that there are a lot of people who feel that they don't know enough about John Kerry to make a judgment about him.

...In March, 68 percent of people felt that they knew a lot about John Kerry, but today, 57 percent do...

The lies about faulty Iraqi intelligence

This debate over prewar intelligence about Saddam's WMD is pointless--the decision to undertake regime change was based not on any specific piece of intelligence but on Saddam's track record.

And for good reason: Intelligence is backward-looking--it tells you what has already occured, but it is not a good prognosticator.

Both India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in the late nineties that caught the CIA off guard--but even though these were widely condemned and treated to sanctions, we knew that a nuclear war between these two nations was unlikely.

The Clinton administration was similarly stunned when North Korea brazenly test fired a nuclear-capable missile over Japan. This happened after we had secured the North Korean dictator's signature on the Agreed Framework; after we, along with Japan and South Korea, had started bribing Pyongyang with billions of dollars in aid.

We didn't fear the worst because we knew then as we do now that we can count on China and Russia to rein in the North.

At the end of the day, we went into Iraq not on a hunch that Saddam could not be trusted, but on a pretty good understanding--you could call it "intelligence"--that if allowed to get out of the box, he would have quickly rearmed (thanks to his reliable weapons suppliers Russia, France, and China), resumed WMD production and invaded Kuwait (in his first day in court recently, Saddam insisted Kuwait belonged to Iraq).

Putting Saddam in that box wasn't an easy or bloodless process, it should be recalled. Containment was achieved by crudely stripping Iraq off its sovereignty--slicing up Iraqi territory into No Fly Zones, blunting Saddam's ability to channel billions in oil revenue toward million-man armies and weapons programs--we contained him by imposing the most inhumane form of collective punishment ever slapped on a nation in modern times.

Shortly after American troops romped into Baghdad, in May 2003, Bush spearheaded a UN resolution that requested a lifting of the sanctions: "The regime that the sanctions were directed against no longer rules Iraq. And no country in good conscience can support using sanctions to hold back the hopes of the Iraqi people," he noted.

Should sanctions have been lifted with Saddam in power?

In his January 2004 testimony, David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, the organization tasked with putting together a complete picture of Iraq's WMD program, concluded that it was simply more prudent to remove the Iraqi dictator: Saddam and his sons were impatiently awaiting a lifting of the sanctions in order to resume WMD production, Kay reported.

A few weeks ago, Russia's Putin revealed that according to his intelligence sources, Saddam was planning attacks on American soil.

In the end, despite the faulty prewar intelligence, the operation achieved its goals--it preemptively removed a dictator that represented a real danger. Bush's leadership and the sacrifice of American-led coalition troops successfully liberated Iraq from the dual evil regimes of Saddam Hussein and UN sanctions--brought (not restored) that nation a new, genuine sovereignty--and set it on a historic course.