Dean's Distortions

[Tigermike 3,840]

August 18, 2005

Dean's Distortions

By Robert Novak

WASHINGTON -- Dr. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, arrived at CBS's Washington studios Sunday with one unusual talking point for his "Face the Nation" interview clearly in mind. He claimed Iraqi women were better off under Saddam Hussein's barbarous regime than they are likely to be under the nascent democracy. In fact, he said it three times.

"That's a terrible thing to say," one old-line Democratic loyalist told me. "But what are we going to do about him? We're stuck with him." The answer by this Democrat and many others is to ignore him, which is not easy when he is on national television.

Iraq seems a major political liability for Republicans and an asset for Democrats. But Dean cannot resist employing the tactics that propelled a little-known former governor of Vermont to front-runner presidential nominee status in 2004 and then produced such a negative reaction that he lost every primary except Vermont's. To suggest that Saddam Hussein's rule is preferable to anything in Iraq is repellent.

In answer to host Bob Schieffer's first question on "Face the Nation," he replied that "it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq. That's a pretty sad commentary on this administration's ability to do anything right." A few moments later, he said: "If it turns out that this constitution really does take away the rights that women have enjoyed in Iraq before, then I can't imagine why we're there."

"Well," said Schieffer, "I'll go back and ask you about that in a minute." He did not, as the interview moved to other things. But Dean went back a third time to his talking point: "The constitution looks like it may take away freedom from the Iraq people, at least half of them, instead of add it to them."

Dean was simplifying and distorting reality. In the complicated, delayed process of drafting an Iraqi constitution, Islam surely will be recognized as the state religion. How that conflicts with women's rights is one issue being hashed out.

The drafters last weekend were described by Shiite negotiator Jalel Aldin Saghir as agreeing that the constitution, while based on Islam, would guarantee women's rights. "There isn't anything in the constitution to impose religious teachings or religious laws in Iraq," Sheik Humam Hamoudi, chairman of the constituent assembly's constitutional committee, said in a news conference last week. Contrary to Dean, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad is pressing Iraqis to protect women's rights in their constitution.

What is so demagogic about Dean's stance is his insinuation that women were better off under the Saddam dictatorship. He is following the lead taken by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the Brookings Institution on Feb. 25 last year. She quoted Iraqi women leaders as "starting to express concerns about some of the pullbacks in the rights they were given under Saddam Hussein. He was an equal opportunity oppressor, but on paper, women had rights." She contended that "as long as they stayed out of his way, they had considerable freedom of movement."

Clinton in 2004 was not nearly so over the top as Dean in 2005, but both are contradicted by people who know the situation better than they and are not driven by partisan concerns. Nina Shea, director of the religious freedom center at Freedom House, responded to Clinton's claim: "Women's rights [under Saddam] were largely an illusion." In 1989 when the dictator was at full power, Iraqi dissident and intellectual Kanan Makiya said: "Male domination has not been done away with. It has found a substitute in the all-male Revolutionary Command Council, the higher army command and the ever-so-male person of Saddam Hussein."

Howard Dean is not the first politician to distort facts in his own interests. But many activists in the party he now leads are puzzled over what he thinks he is accomplishing politically. Is it good politics to contend that Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein than even a flawed Islamic republic? Does it make sense politically to tell Americans that more than 1,800 troops have died to make life worse for half of Iraq's population?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentar...8_18_05_RN.html

[alexgreatau 0]

Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!

Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!

Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!

Does that say it all about Dr. Dean? I can't think of anyone outside of the "kuke fringe" left that takes this guy seriously. Even the moderate Democrats in the Party are embarassed by his invective rhetoric and fallacious conclusions based on no evidence whatsoever.

I guess that mass graves and rape rooms are a step up from the occupation of the evil American forces and the new incendiary Iraqi constitution, according to Dr. Dean.

It's hard to believe that the party of great American presidents like FDR, Truman, and JFK is now the party of Howard Dean and Michael Moore. This is good for Republicans like myself, but the Democratic Party is not even a shadow of its former self. It's nowhere close to resembling what it once was and what the party once stood for.

Alex

[Piglet 0]

Some distortion. We got rid of a secular dictator and replaced it with rulership by Shi'ites who believe women are inferior beings and need to be clad in those black sack things and can be killed by their husbands. Under the old regime, individual women who ran afoul of the authorities got jailed and raped by guards with no due process. Now they're under religious tyranny. Seems to me, reasonable people could differ about which is worse.

I suppose if he had phrased it, "Women are worse off under fundamentalist Islam than under Christianity", it would have made more sense.

[alexgreatau 0]

Piglet,

If you recall, our first constitution didn't guarantee women's rights, nor did they guarantee the basic civil rights to black men either.

Have you ever heard of the "thumb law"? This was a valid law in the U.S well into the 1890's. This piece of legislation said that a husband could beat his wife with any item the size of a thumb or smaller.

We all know what blacks in this country had to go through before they were given the rights to vote, hold public office, sit at the same tables and ride the same buses as whites, etc.

One century and several amendments later, blacks had the right to citizenship and women had the right to vote.

Unfortunately for Iraq, their constitution is currently in 1787 mode. They have years to go and a lot of catching up to do.

Alex

[TexasTiger 14,528]

Piglet,

If you recall, our first constitution didn't guarantee women's rights, nor did they guarantee the basic civil rights to black men either.

Have you ever heard of the "thumb law"? This was a valid law in the U.S well into the 1890's. This piece of legislation said that a husband could beat his wife with any item the size of a thumb or smaller.

We all know what blacks in this country had to go through before they were given the rights to vote, hold public office, sit at the same tables and ride the same buses as whites, etc.

One century and several amendments later, blacks had the right to citizenship and women had the right to vote.

Unfortunately for Iraq, their constitution is currently in 1787 mode. They have years to go and a lot of catching up to do.

Alex

175142[/snapback]

The problem with that analogy is that it is 2005 and our troops are dying to establish a society that is supposed to be less tolerant to the brand of Islamic fundamentalism that despises the West and leads to terrorism. In 1787, the USA was not dramatically behind the freedom levels in other countries. In fact, we were on the leading edge.

[alexgreatau 0]

175142[/snapback]

The problem with that analogy is that it is 2005 and our troops are dying to establish a society that is supposed to be less tolerant to the brand of Islamic fundamentalism that despises the West and leads to terrorism.  In 1787, the USA was not dramatically behind the freedom levels in other countries.  In fact, we were on the leading edge.

175161[/snapback]

There's no real difference in the troops who are dying in 2005 as opposed to those who died during the American Revolution that lead to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Men die so others can be free. Freedom comes with a huge price tag on the front cover. Will this new Iraqi government be less tolerant to the brand of Islamic fundamentalism that despises the West and leads to terrorism? I hope so but don't think for a moment that I'm not crossing my fingers on this one. My biggest fear is that this new Iraqi government will become a Shiite stronghold allied with Shiite Iran. That would be catastrophic and I cringe at the thought of what an Iraq-Iran alliance would bring to the world. Then again, there's no love loss between Iraq and Iran, bitter feelings over the civil war have not yet abated and never will. We're just gonna have to play a wait and see game here, these things take time.

Alex

[TexasTiger 14,528]

175142[/snapback]

The problem with that analogy is that it is 2005 and our troops are dying to establish a society that is supposed to be less tolerant to the brand of Islamic fundamentalism that despises the West and leads to terrorism.  In 1787, the USA was not dramatically behind the freedom levels in other countries.  In fact, we were on the leading edge.

175161[/snapback]

There's no real difference in the troops who are dying in 2005 as opposed to those who died during the American Revolution that lead to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Men die so others can be free. Freedom comes with a huge price tag on the front cover. Will this new Iraqi government be less tolerant to the brand of Islamic fundamentalism that despises the West and leads to terrorism? I hope so but don't think for a moment that I'm not crossing my fingers on this one. My biggest fear is that this new Iraqi government will become a Shiite stronghold allied with Shiite Iran. That would be catastrophic and I cringe at the thought of what an Iraq-Iran alliance would bring to the world. Then again, there's no love loss between Iraq and Iran, bitter feelings over the civil war have not yet abated and never will. We're just gonna have to play a wait and see game here, these things take time.

Alex

175182[/snapback]

Sorry, but there's a huge difference when you initiate the fight for you own freedom as opposed to when I initiate for you. Still, you ignore the larger problem with comparing the freedoms in our 1787 constitution to their yet to ratified 2005 one.

My biggest fear is that this new Iraqi government will become a Shiite stronghold allied with Shiite Iran. That would be catastrophic and I cringe at the thought of what an Iraq-Iran alliance would bring to the world.

One thing we agree one. And for me, the likelihood of this "catastrophic" outcome was a key reason for opposing this invasion. Yes, Saddam was a terrible tyrant. But Osama couldn't unseat him and neither could Iran. Both wanted to and not for "democratic" reasons. We did it for them.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Still, you ignore the larger problem with comparing the freedoms in our 1787 constitution to their yet to ratified 2005 one.

Yeah, there wasn't a Bush in the White House in 1787.

[alexgreatau 0]

175182[/snapback]

Sorry, but there's a huge difference when you initiate the fight for you own freedom as opposed to when I initiate for you.  Still, you ignore the larger problem with comparing the freedoms in our 1787 constitution to their yet to ratified 2005 one.

Actually, the Brits taxed us into the stone age, nearly crippled our trading, and fired the first shot at Patriot minutement at Lexington, MA. The Americans didn't initiate anything but I guess that's another topic for another day.

The larger problem is this: Iraq is a disaster area, with or without Suddam Hussein. Now, the real question is, which scenario, although both bad, is worse, an Iraq controlled by Hussein or a free and liberated Iraq? The answer has to unequivocally be a free and liberated Iraq has to be desirable in comparison to the alternative. We can argue and debate the WMD argument all day long, there are compelling arguments in both cases, but the fact still remains that Suddam Hussein was a global threat who wanted to procure WMD's and had Hitler ambitions. Why did Sadaam violate 17 U.N resolutions in 15 years? Why did he kick the U.N weapons inspections committee out of Iraq on several different occassions? Sadaam used WMD's in the past against the Kurds in northern Iraq. He wanted to take his cause globally. He hated the U.S, had an old score to settle with Iran, and wanted Saudi Arabia and Kuwaiit's oil for Iraq.

If you consider that Sadaam had the world's 4th largest army at his disposal, you can infer that Sadaam planned to use this army for more than defending Iraq.

What I'm trying to say is that invading Iraq was a bad idea, but sitting idle and leaving Sadaam unfethered in Iraq would have been much worse. Invading Iraq was a bad idea but unfortunately, it was the only choice we had. Sadaam had to go, period, end of story.

My biggest fear is that this new Iraqi government will become a Shiite stronghold allied with Shiite Iran. That would be catastrophic and I cringe at the thought of what an Iraq-Iran alliance would bring to the world.

One thing we agree one.  And for me, the likelihood of this "catastrophic" outcome was a key reason for opposing this invasion.  Yes, Saddam was a terrible tyrant.  But Osama couldn't unseat him and neither could Iran.  Both wanted to and not for "democratic" reasons.  We did it for them.

Exactly. That's why it's important for the allied forces to stay the course in Iraq until the new Iraqi government is confident in the new Iraqi army ability to defend the country. If we pull out prematurely, then we're screwed. Iran will either ally themselves with the new Iraqi govt. or simply use their powerful army to overthrow the new govt. This is a consequence that can never be fully realized. Maybe the Iraqi army is light years away frome where they need to be, but there's always hope. In comparison to the Americans in 1776, it will be the fre Iraqi's who are responsible for fighting for and winning their own freedom.

Alex