Howard Dean, in a speech at Drake University, February 17, 2003:
Our country needs to have national security policies that protect the interests of the American people. To do that, those policies must keep us safe and well defended against the myriad threats we face. But they cannot succeed unless they also reflect the kind of people we are, the values we share, the hopes we have, and the ideals that hold us together as a nation.
I am worried that many of the policies the Bush Administration is pursuing today do not provide the best means of defending our interests, and do not reflect the fundamental values of our people.
In saying this, I am respectful of the pressures our leaders face. Safeguarding our national security in this era is a very complex challenge, to which there are no easy answers. The President deserves praise for rallying the spirits of our people after September 11 and for some of the measures he and others in his Administration have taken since. I know they are sincere, and that they want what is best for our country and the world.
But I would not be doing my job as a citizen if I did not state my own conviction about where I believe we could do better.
The stakes are so high, this is not a time for holding back or sheepishly going along with the herd.
I believe that the President too often employs a reckless, go-it-alone approach that drives us away from some of our longest-standing and most important allies, when what we need is to pull the world community together in common action against the imminent threat of terrorism.
I believe that the President undercuts our long-term national security interests and the established international order when he seeks to replace decades of bipartisan consensus on the use of American force with a new doctrine justifying preemptive attacks against other nation states - not because of their current action or imminent threat, but to preempt a threat that could arise in the future.
I believe that the President must do more on the most important front in the war on terrorism - our home front - through strengthened and well-funded first responders and effective security measures that go beyond calls to purchase plastic sheeting and duct tape.
And I firmly believe that the President is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time, when our energy and our resources should be marshaled for the greatest threats we face. Yes, Saddam Hussein is evil. But Osama bin Laden is also evil, and he has attacked the United States, and he is preparing now to attack us again.
What happened to the war against al Qaeda?
Why has this Administration taken us so far off track?
I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America's security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the other nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein.
Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the President to use unilateral force against Iraq - unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency.
I do not believe the President should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and the American people for why this war is necessary, and without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations.
That the President was given open-ended authority to go to war in Iraq resulted from a failure of too many in my party in Washington who were worried about political positioning for the presidential election.
To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.
Nor has the Administration prepared sufficiently for the possible retaliatory attacks on our home front that even the President's CIA Director has stated are likely to occur. It has always been important, before going to war, for our troops to be well-trained, well-equipped, and well-protected. In this new era, it is as important that our people on the home front also be well-protected.
The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled.
And the Administration has approached the United Nations more as an afterthought than as the international institution created to deal with precisely such a situation as we face in Iraq. From the outset, the Administration has seemed oblivious to the simple fact that it clearly would be in our interests for any war with Iraq to occur with UN authorization and cooperation and not without it.
The Administration's reckless bluster with our allies over Iraq has caused what could be lasting friction in important relationships and has injured our standing in the world community. When rhetoric by subordinates in the Administration alienates our long-standing allies, it should be met with reprimand and not condoned by the President.
[snip]
We have been told over and over again what the risks will be if we do not go to war.
We have been told little about what the risks will be if we do go to war.
If we go to war, I certainly hope the Administration's assumptions are realized, and the conflict is swift, successful and clean.
I certainly hope our armed forces will be welcomed like heroes and liberators in the streets of Baghdad.
I certainly hope Iraq emerges from the war stable, united and democratic.
I certainly hope terrorists around the world conclude it is a mistake to defy America and cease, thereafter, to be terrorists.
It is possible, however, that events could go differently, and that the Iraqi Republican Guard will not sit out in the desert where they can be destroyed easily from the air.
It is possible that Iraq will try to force our troops to fight house to house in the middle of cities - on its turf, not ours - where precision-guided missiles are of little use.
It is possible that women and children will be used as shields and our efforts to minimize civilian casualties will be far less successful than we hope.
There are other risks.
Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.
Iran and Turkey each have interests in Iraq they will be tempted to protect with or without our approval.
If the war lasts more than a few weeks, the danger of humanitarian disaster is high, because many Iraqis depend on their government for food, and during war it would be difficult for us to get all the necessary aid to the Iraqi people.
There is a risk of environmental disaster, caused by damage to Iraq's oil fields.
And, perhaps most importantly, there is a very real danger that war in Iraq will fuel the fires of international terror.
Anti-American feelings will surely be inflamed among the misguided who choose to see an assault on Iraq as an attack on Islam, or as a means of controlling Iraqi oil.
And last week's tape by Osama bin Laden tells us that our enemies will seek relentlessly to transform a war into a tool for inspiring and recruiting more terrorists.
We should remember how our military presence in Saudi Arabia has been exploited by radicals to stir resentment and hatred against the United States, leading to the murder of American citizens and soldiers.
We need to consider what the effect will be of a U.S. invasion and occupation of Baghdad, a city that served for centuries as a capital of the Islamic world.
Some people simply brush aside these concerns, saying there were also a lot of dire predictions before the first Gulf War, and that those didn't come true.
We have learned through experience to have confidence in our armed forces - and that confidence is very well deserved.
But if you talk to military leaders, they will tell you there is a big difference between pushing back the Iraqi armed forces in Kuwait and trying to defeat them on their home ground.
There are limits to what even our military can do. Technology is not the solution to every problem. And we can't assume the Iraqis have learned nothing over the past twelve years.
Howard Dean was right about the Iraq war. He was right, and John Kerry and Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton and all the other Vichy Democrats who cravenly went along with it were wrong. Only Howard Dean had the courage to speak out against this war, which has played out almost exactly as he predicted.
It is now almost two years after the campaign of 2004, and the Democratic Party has not only learned nothing, it is still driving quality candidates who speak the truth out of the race because they're afraid -- afraid of their own shadows; afraid Karl Rove will say mean things about them. They drove Paul Hackett out of the Ohio Senate race. Here in the Fifth District of New Jersey, they have now driven Anne Wolfe out of the race to take our Congressional seat back from Scott Garrett -- a dangerous Christofascist wingnut who ran for office with a moderate mask on and has become Tom DeLay's loyal lackey in Congress.
Here's what Anne Wolfe had to say in a letter sent to supporters this week:
Over 120,000 citizens voted for me in 2004. This was an unprecedented number of votes for a Democratic challenger in the Fifth District. In fact, I received more votes than the Democratic candidate for President. I was endorsed by all three major newspapers. We created a campaign based on issues not on personal
attacks and our opponent outspent us by 3-1. By the end of the campaign, we gained tremendous momentum and I am truly grateful to every voter who cast their vote for
Dorothea Anne Wolfe.
I was asked by a tremendous number of voters to run again in 2006, as many of you felt that the Fifth District deserved to have a known Democratic challenger
continue to fight to regain the Fifth District seat. I raised over $75,000 and went to Washington, D.C., to seek early endorsements from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and other national groups. I was praised for my performance in 2004, but the priorities of the DCCC and other groups like
EMILY's List for 2006 do not include New Jersey's Fifth District.
If one examines all of the polls and their projections for the 2006 cycle, our District is not included. The cost of running a reasonable race in the Fifth District is above $1.5 million and viability is important for funding. The party organizations have encouraged me to self-fund and that is not possible.
Because of these financial and strategic considerations, and because of other pressing issues in the district that need immediate attention, I have decided to withdraw my name for consideration as a Democratic candidate for the United States Congress in the Fifth District of New Jersey in 2006.
The so-called "Howard Dean wing" of the Democratic party has proven itself correct on issue after issue; and yet time and again, the party has shown that it has no use for Howard Dean, or Paul Hackett, or Anne Wolfe, or any other socially progressive, fiscally moderate Democrat that isn't part of the inside circle.
The Democrats WILL lose in November. Howard Dean has been effectively muzzled by the DLC and their minions. It will be interesting to see how they spin this one the day after Election Day this fall.
(hat tip for the Dean speech link: Glenn Greenwald, at Crooks and Liars)
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire