After 9/11, the money phrase around Washington was that all of our intelligence services ‘failed to connect the dots.’ IN that spirit, I would like to do some dot-connecting for you.
On Sunday, Drudge reported that Howard Dean was using Jimmy Carter as a consultant, going to him for information and advice.
Later that day, Dean had the following to say:
Howard Dean launched a full-throated attack on President Bush’s foreign policy acumen Sunday, saying Bush has “no understanding of defense,” is conducting diplomacy by “petulance” and lacks “the backbone to stand up against the Saudis.”
Amid a crush of well wishers seeking autographs at a high school here, Dean said of Bush: “I think he’s made us weaker. He doesn’t understand what it takes to defend this country, that you have to have high moral purpose. He doesn’t understand that you better keep troop morale high rather than just flying over for Thanksgiving,” as Bush did in visiting Baghdad.
Today, Bob Dole stated:
“I thank God F.D.R. was my commander in chief in WWII. Had it been Howard Dean we would have not participated. This would have saved lives and none of us would have been wounded. Just one little problem: we would have lost our liberty and freedom.”
Matt Stinson has more.
Terry
I think the general public are beginning to take the measure of Mr. Dean, and the early results indicate that they don’t much like what they’re seeing or hearing. A poll on whom would they trust more on national security issues reported this evening on TV had Bush in front by nearly 2 to 1.
JadeGold
Any rightwinger care to explain the latest lie coming from Junior?
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=412802§ion=news
Really–is there anything your president won’t lie about?
Slartibartfast
If you follow the link, you’ll see there’s nothing he lied about.
It always helps to use links that actually point to something that supports your point. If you even have one.
JadeGold
I see, Slart.
So, the WH spokesman doesn’t work for your president.
Hmmmm.
Whom–praytell–does he work for? And why is he lying?
Gryphon
Boy, these Iraq=WWII references are getting really tiresome. But Dole’s response is especially inane, since I can’t really see any difference between the positions he *ascribes* to Dean and FDR’s actual policies, since FDR waited until we were attacked by Japan and war was declared upon us by Germany and Italy (look it up, oh ignorant of high school history ones) before we entered the war.
Granted, he was giving Britain every possible legal means of support and some that were probably on the Iran-Contra impeachable scale of illegal (such as having American warships escorting British convoys into a war zone, which resulted in two of them getting torpedoed before we entered the war), but the fact remains that he realized that, tyrant though Hitler was and rapacious as the Japanese were in Cina, there wasn’t the public support to send us into the war before Pearl Harbor.
Gregory Litchfield
Gryphon – Not so. FDR had committed US forces against the Axis prior to Pearl Harbor. The US Navy was used to escort convoys to Britain and hunt down German submarines prior to December 7th, and at least one destroyer was sunk during these operations.
JKC
Another way of looking at Dean’s comments, if we’re going to use the WW II analogy, is to say that Dean’s response to Pearl Harbor would not have been invading Korea.
But I like Wes Clark at this point, so what do I know?
Slartibartfast
Once again, Jade shows itself to be immune to any form of communication. Read my lips, Jade: the link doesn’t actually point to any article. There’s no conclusion that we can therefore reasonably come to, given that you’ve supplied no information.
If you need me to, I can use smaller words. But that’s probably unnecessary, seeing that John banned you.
JPS
Gryphon:
I think Dole’s basic point, not inane at all, is that if you applied Dean’s logic to 1941, we should have found a way to stay out of WWII. Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor, don’t you think we’d have been at war anyway, not too long later (from the actions you and Gregory have described)?
JKC: Why Korea? I could pretty well use Dean logic to rail retroactively against the invasion of Morocco.
Kimmitt
Dole seems to be implying that under a President Dean, the US would not have responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of wars by the Japanese, Nazi, and Italian regimes with a vigorous prosecution of the war.
This is a vile slur and unworthy of a statesman such as former Senator Dole. I hope that it was taken out of context.
Split Lip
W is vulnerable to charges that he hasn’t toughened up to the Saudis. I’m sure there’s pictures of him or Cheney or others in the administration cuddling up with some fat robed sissy in Riyadh; don’t think Dean won’t use it.
W is no different than every president since FDR vis a vis the Saudis. Dean won’t be different, either, if elected. But it can be a campaign issue.
But Dean is someone who people who already agree with him really like, but who will piss off those fence sitters who win elections for President. E.g., he wants to give felons the right to vote. He lambasted Bush after the partial birth abortion bill (saying, and I’m almost quoting here, “I have an M.D. but this bill should be followed by a B.S.”) and this statement about Bush being so naive and making the country weaker with our foreign policy will rub people the wrong way. What the hell does the ex-gov of Vermont, one of the smallest states in geography, population and economy, know about foreign policy?
Robin Roberts
If one went so far as to actually consider Dean’s comments as coherent, at best you find that Dean just wants to be “petulant” toward different nations.
Together with Dean’s comments on North Korea, he is demonstrating that his “foreign policy” comments are quite silly.
wallster
Gryphon and Kimmitt are exactly right. Analogizing WWII and this invasion is ridiculous.
Given Dole’s idiotic comments, I suggest this be recategorized under ‘Republican Stupidity’