and why we all won, including Dean.
Greetings:) ... It is now about 7 1/2 months before the Presidential Election. John Kerry and George Bush are revving their engines and entering into what looks like might be the roughest election season ever. Last year at this time, it was a much different picture. The democrats couldn't even come close in a poll and it seemed George Bush was on an easy path to victory.
We were about to go to war. And with fear as their guide, it seemed as though the President had made his case and he seemingly had. If he didn't have a mandate, he did have a clear consensus from the people and Congress to invade Iraq, topple the regime and finally get rid of all those stockpiles of WMD's and almost ready-to-go nuclear bombs he was planning on setting off in the USA. George and the administration apparantly knew these things as facts and they convinced most people, in the wake of 9/11, that going to war was the only solution. This was despite not finishing the mission in Afghanastan and bringing the leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden to justice. For which there was a clear mandate from the people, not only here, but around the world.
Bush decided to parlay that bloodlust and fear in the hearts and minds of America. He used the successes that had been achieved in Afghanastan to carry out an agenda that certain people in the administration and around it had been salivating over since 1991. People often assume that the only people who had this feeling of wanting to take out Saddam Hussein ASAP since 1991were the 5 or 6 guys and gals who were around in the 80's and in the 1st Bush administration, and have since moved up through the years are the only people involved. Them and a few oil guys.
But it wasn't. And it wasn't the conspiracy it has been laid out to be from left wing pundits. What it always was, going back to 1991 after the 1st Gulf War, was a general philosophy by hawkish folks who are not only in all aspects of goverment, but in all aspects of life.
It amazes me now on how many people have such short memories of how many folks, good Americans, just like you and me, thought we shouldn't had stopped at the border and marched to Baghdad in 1990. Then we would take out Hussein and promote a democracy. Just like now.
It wasn't a conspiracy, it was a mindset. But it was a mindset that was not shared by George's father and those "neoconservative" underling's boss, George Bush "41." It was a mindset that smarter minds in the military knew to stay away from. They saw what a hornet's nest it would be. They knew that the Iraqi's, just like the other muslim nations in the mid east, would never tolerate the west telling them how to run their own country. They knew that they hadn't since the 1st crusades back in the middle ages. They knew that the real leaders of these countries, the church hierarchies, would never stand for letting anyone who wasn't one of them be in charge.
So George 41 decided to stay out of Baghdad and contain Hussein thru his natural enemies and sanctions and various pressures. I'm sure Bush 41 knew that we would roll over them militarily fairly easily. But Bush and the people he trusted back then knew that what would follow could be worse. He decided to stand down. And a year later, when the revolt against Saddam led by the sheite muslim leader was showing promise, George made maybe the only mistake that could have changed all this. The muslim clerics and leaders were taking Bush up on his offer to give assistance to anyone who wanted to topple Saddam Hussein. But Bush didn't follow through on that promise. Instead, he stood aside and watched Saddam crush the uprising of Muslims and further cement his power base in Iraq. Why he broke his promise is still a mystery. Some speculate it was politics and the upcoming election. Some speculated that we wanted Saddam out, but feared a sheite theocracy, right next door to the sects power base of Iran would be more trouble.
But whatever the reason, which isn't totally important, and a whole other debate. For years after, there was an undercurrent of hawkishness about Iraq. It seemed to me that most had the motivation of "finishing the job." They saw the 1st Gulf War as incomplete and never could really understand why Bush didn't take out Saddam when they felt he "had the chance." Again, this wasn't a sentiment felt by just a few neoconservatives like Wolfowitz or American Standard big-wig Bill Kristol. It was a feeling shared by millions of Americans. After all, when you go to war, you go until the other side surrenders. The way they saw it, Saddam never surrendered. He merely used the United Nations to avoid his own demise. So that led to a deep resentment of Saddam and the UN, who in their eyes, by this revisionist logic, stopped us from taking out Saddam Hussein.
So, for the whole 1990's, there was this feeling that we should have,,,and we still could. When the Republicans seized control of Congress that feeling grew. During the Clinton administration, Saddam became a platform to show the electorate that you were a tough guy.In Clinton's 2nd term, both parties were using Iraq as a P.R. platform to gain support and get votes. It really didn't have a lot to do with Iraq or Hussein really, but rather it was just a means to get votes. The same way politicians used communism post WW II they now used Iraq. But since the fall of the wall and the break-up of the USSR, politicians couldn't use communism. Iraq served as a jumping point in speeches and interviews and bills and resolutions to show people that this politician is tough and serious about protecting you. And since it seemed everyone hated Iraq, both parties could dip into the well at will. It wasn't like the drug war where conservatives got more bang for their political buck compared to the democrats. Or like enviromental issues were for the left, where their constituents usually got more play than the GOP politicians did or careed to get.
After 9/11 opportunity presented itself once again. There are reports that suggest that some administration officials were hell bent on connecting 9/11 and Iraq. In fact, even after it was discovered and proven that the operation was pure Al Quaeda out of afghanastan, a group we knew was at odds with Hussein, some still pushed that he "must have had something to do with it."
But still around were all those people who wanted to finish the job. When it began to be suggested that we may invade Iraq, it seemed support grew quickly. Indeed, the support was already there. And with the bravado of pummeling Afghanastan those folks were more than ready to go in. Those were the folks that when the subject was breached "around the water cooler" or over a beer in the corner bar, would kind of wink and give that lil knowing nod that he "must have had something to do with it." The administration allowed this to grow in the american psychie. They became masters at putting out just enough information to let people's imaginations take over.
This got a lot of people on board. The president didn't have a majority yet, but he had enough to make the case. He also had enough senators and reps in place in congress that he knew he could get any vote he wanted in. That's when the whole WMD thing happened.
In order to sell the media, the rest of congress and the general public on the idea and get enough people so there wouldn't be any real controversy over going in, Bush started making the WMD connection. Saddam had em, he was ready to use him or sell em to say,,,Al Qaeda. And then he threw in the whole,,,he's got the Nuke!!! ploy with the Uranium from Africa mumbo jumbo and such. And by winter of 2002, everyone who wasn't totally on board with rushing into Saddam's country and taking him out was a traitor and hated America. Even before people dared raise any questions about the war, the word was out...against war with Iraq, against America. And after the 2002 elections where guys like Max Cleeland, a triple amputee from Nam was painted as "a buddy of Osama Bin Ladn" and such, no one dared question the administration's motives or conduct.
This is a main point of why going in to Iraq the way we did was wrong. The American people and Congress were not given an honest debate on the issue. The information provided was selective and biased. Many of the "witnesses" were obviously agendized INC people who were only interested in getting what they wanted and felt no shame in lying to the US to achieve those means. It is still unclear if we were lied to or the intelligence was manipulated or what, but regardless, the point is, at the time, a mob mentality instilled in America. And the administration and it's pundits in and out of the white house fed and sometimes led that mob that said...."No one was allowed to question anything about going to war."
One guy did. Howard Dean.
Of course, he wasn't the only one. But he was the only one who could get anyone to listen. He was still an asterik in the polls, but at least as a former governor and presidential canddate, he could get some time with the media and give a voice to the few who didn't fall for what was going on. Dean gave a voice to all of us who didn't have such a short memory and did a little more digging and found everything wasn't just as they had said. By now, we all know what Dean said. And we all know now that on many fronts, he was right.
By the fall of 2003, Dean was climbing fast as more and more people realized they had been duped. And it wasn't just about Iraq. It was about the whole way we have conducted our foreign policy since we decided we had a right to as much of their oil as we wanted. Our mid-east policy had been sneaky and underhanded at best. And at worst, it was downright bogus. And this wasn't a democrat or republican thing. The mid east had a lways been a tool for politicaians to use for their own benefit. The mid east was a cash cow to every one who ever thought about digging a well and striking oil. Businesses helped politicians, politicians helped businesses. Which in itself wasn't atypical for a political society that is also quite capatalist in nature.
But the mid east was a problem as much as it was an opportunity. Those pesky muslims who had thwarted the west since the middle ages always made things tough. And since WWII and the creation of Isreal by the UN and the US's pro-isreal stance they really hated us. And just when we thought we had em under control, then Secretary of State, Henry Kissenger offers a geff where he tells the world that we, not them, determine the price we pay for oil. Of course that led to OPEC thwarting us back and we have watched the OPEC leaders raise and lower the price we pay at will. In fact, right now, the OPEC prices have been skyrocketing as a subtle message to who is really in control over there. And don't kid yourself that the war has created some shortfall of supply. Supply shortfalls are being deliberately caused by the OPEC nations by simply scaling back so the price naturally increases.
By the time Dr Dean suspended his candidacy for the President, the whole mindset of the country had changed. No, Howard wasn't going to get his shot to debate George as the nominee, but by what he did, and by setting the agenda for this election, both on foreign and domestic affairs, Dr Dean made it possible for all of us to win.
The momentum and not so subtle reminder to stand up for what you believe in message that Howard Dean put forth is what has brought people out of the woodwork. The democratic party has come together like never before. It had seemed to had lost it's soul, or at least it's heart towards the end of the 90's and into this millenium. Some would argue that the democratic party had been slipping for the last decade or 2 or even 3...but regardless, someone needed to remind them and us who had lost faith with the party on different levels. And Howard Dean is more responsible for that than anyone else. And I personally don't think we've heard the last from the good doctor.
Dean lost for a reason that seems to get overlooked by much of the media. No one bothered to tell him or Joe Trippi that where it's really nice to have a bunch of scruffy, neohippie, in between phish concert youth supporting you. Don't send them out into the rural farm country of Iowa to tell a bunch of set in their ways country folk that they are wrong about just everything. While Dean had a lot of support, it is obvious, no one trained them. Or at least no one had the nerve to suggest some hair cuts, decent clothes and a few manners like what people in Iowa are used to in their younger set. Maybe it's not politically correct to even bring it up, but it needs to be pointed out. It needs to be pointed out so that when these young folk go out and campaign for John Kerry someone has the gumption and foresight to clean some of these kids up and teach them some diplomacy skills before sending them out to gather support from more conservative parts of America.
After all, this is a political election...impressions and perceptions do come into play, right or wrong. It seems the Dean staffers approached the Iowa caucus as a "show me how open minded you are" contest instead of a political contest where feelings do matter. Point is, Howard's message got through as the polls clearly showed, but it wsa this influx of ragtag youth with a chip on their shoulder that turned Iowans and conversely, the rest of America away from Dean and over to Kerry and Edwards to continue the fight.
Of course, Dick Gephardt effectively threw himself on a grenade for his Senator friends as it was obvious by 2 weeks before the caucus that Gephardt stood no chance of winning himself. That didn' t help Dean, but it, in itself didn't kill him as much as the wandering band of drum circle particpants did.
Then the scream thing happened, and the media assisted the DNC leadership in making sure that Dean was out. But the real damage was done by the brash campaigning of Dean's younger supporters. They were simply given too free of a hand in the way they campaigned. I believe that if the scream thing wouldn't have happened, Dean would have struggled none the less. Each state would have saw these dangerous looking teens telling them to vote for Howard or they were just a closed minded fool.
I believe that Dean's grassroots eforts and the organization he is forming will have an impact on the election and hopefully beyond. But if it is to be effective, someone needs to get better organized in training and getting younger campaign workers to "look the part." Again, this isn't an open-mindedness contest, it's an election. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. In many ways, the Dean campaign reminded me much of the Eugene McCarthy campaign of 1968. One lesson they could learn from that campaign was their insistance that the hippies cut their hair before going out to represent him. Perhaps "Get clean for Gene" should have been "Get clean for Dean." One thing is for certain, I don't think "Phish Phans for Kerry" will carry much weight outside of a concert parking lot or dorm room quad.
But overall, we all have won. We now are at least beginning to investigate events and debate issues with more honesty and openness. People are more willing to stand up for their rights and beliefs than they were when all it meant was being ignored, laughed at or being called a traitor. They know they aren't alone. The veils of fear are being lifted. It may not be morning in America again quite yet, but it is definitely past midnight.
But regardless of who wins in November, the real fight will continue. That is the fight to end this charade of our politicians to avoid as much accountability as they can get away with. It is the fight to get closer to our true goverment. That is the goverment that is of, for and by the people, not the politicians and their greedy cronies. That Americans are tired of the backroom political games and the pandering and such that goes on. That we don't elect politicians to serve us by telling us to look the other way when what they are doing is our business in every sense. That is the crux of what Howard Dean's message was about. People can nit pick his words and gaffs all they want, but it doesn't matter to the people who heard what he said. And what he was realy talking about in the big picture was all about taking back our country that we own.
And he's right.
sean:)