Can somebody please tell me what the big deal was about Howard Dean's "major foreign policy address" in Los Angeles on Monday? In his speech he offered nothing new -- except to announce that Saddam's capture was no big deal.
The New York Times approvingly calls Dean's foreign policy "nuanced" -- liberal speak for erudite. I call it shallow and misguided. You can review Dean's speech to the Council on Foreign Relations on June 25 and see that Monday's speech was just a rehash. The only things that have changed are that it's a half a year later and Dean and the media have apparently decided it's time that Dean -- the antiwar, anti-Bush phenom -- acquire some foreign policy credentials as the Democrats' last best hope to unseat the evil George Dubya.
Before addressing foreign policy issues, Dean made the obligatory appeal to class warfare, saying "a domestic policy centered on increasing the wealth of the wealthiest Americans, and ceding power to favored corporate campaign contributors, is a recipe for economic disaster."
While liberal elites are fond of boasting that their center of power is in the blue states, where people are educated and enlightened, they have never reconciled that claim with their endless appeal to morons who will swallow the lie that Republican domestic policy is aimed at making the rich richer.
Shifting to foreign policy, Dean said, "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." Perhaps so, perhaps not, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that Saddam's capture will be demoralizing to his terrorist followers and supporters who happen to be waging war against American soldiers. Come on, Howard, can't you express a little jubilation about that?
But at least Dean is consistent. The New Republic reported that "when the statue of Saddam Hussein came crumbling down in Baghdad's Firdos Square, Howard Dean blithely remarked that he 'suppose(d) that's a good thing.' It wasn't exactly his finest hour." No, it wasn't. Nor was his earlier reaction to the deaths of Saddam's brutal sons Uday and Qusay, when he said, "The ends do not justify the means."
Why do you suppose the Democrats' leading candidate just can't seem to show enthusiasm about America's military triumphs? Why is his knee-jerk reaction so consistently negative? Maybe we should think of it as "nuanced."