December 06, 2005

Howard Dean - the United States Will Lose The Iraq War

It's official. Howard Dean declares that the United States will lose the Iraq War and that our forces should be immediately withdrawn:

(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.

What an asshole. What an idiot.

A few thoughts:

Good to see that the Democrats' position on the war will be announced has only taken almost three years. My confidence in the Democrats handling of national security is pretty much non-existent.

Every time Howard Dean opens his mouth, he makes it more than evident that he has no idea what he is talking about, nor does he have any concern as to the implications of the policy he is suggesting.

Moreover, it is clear he hasn't thought through his comments. He announces that we cannot win the war against Al Quaeda and the Bathists in Iraq, so the U.S. should immediately withdraw and re-deploy. Re-deploy to where? To fight Al Quaeda in Afghanistan (even though the majority of Al Quaeda operatives now appear to be fighting the U.S. in Iraq). But, didn't he just say that we couldn't defeat these same forces?
So, we should fight Zarqawi, who is in Iraq, by withdrawing from Iraq to a friendly neighboring country? That makes no sense. If you want to destroy an enemy, you usually have to go to where the enemy is to engage that enemy. Moreover, if the Democrat's argument is correct that Iraq became a terrorist battleground because of our presence, don't you risk turning that "friendly" neighboring country into the next Iraq?

On a side note, if you are a Democrat, aren't you at all concerned about losing the military vote?

Howard Dean then goes on to compare the Administration's handling of pre-war intelligence as another Watergate scandal... alleging that Bush lied, mislead and supposedly forgot to give the Senate intelligence that disproved the case for war... of course, without providing evidence to suggest that Bush knew there were no WMD's and ignoring the bipartisan commissions that have proven Bush did not mislead the Senate.
| |

<< Home