by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright December 18, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

aking his lumps, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean finds his Democratic rivals nipping at his heels, hoping to knock the unequivocal front-runner off his perch. What makes Dean's campaign special is the excitement generated on the stump, sending cheering crowds to their feet, applauding unvarnished attacks against President Bush. Before the Pentagon launched Tomahawk Cruise Missiles March 20, Dean vociferously opposed the war, believing the White House had not made a convincing case. Like Hans Blix and his team of U.N. weapons inspectors, Dean had not seen enough evidence of weapons of mass destruction to warrant force. Ten months, later there's still no evidence that Saddam represented a threat to U.S. national security. When Saddam emerged from his dirt hole, Dean's rivals went for the jugular, hoping to score points against Bush's biggest critic.

      Dean's opposition stemmed not from his love of the U.N. but for his reluctance to commit U.S. forces without a credible threat. Dean never bought the tenuous connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Nor has any other intelligence agency found such a link. Dean simply didn't think the threshold for war revolved around a litany of shifting excuses, including, as President Bush said recently, that a free Iraq would somehow transform the Middle East. Dean's critics make much ado about his apparent inconsistencies. “There's no question Saddam is a threat to the U.S. and our allies,” Dean told “Face the Nation” Sept. 29, 2002, yet insisted recently that he “never said Saddam was a danger to the United States.” Such discrepancies stem from the words “threat” and “danger,” utterly useless terms unless properly quantified. Many threats and dangers require no action at all.

      Saddam's hatred toward the U.S. makes him a threat or a danger but not one that couldn't be managed without force. Before committing the U.S. military, Dean believed threats to national security must be real. “I was thinking about imminent threats,” said Dean, responding to criticism that he flip-flopped on Iraq. Dean's worst critics haven't been with the GOP but his own party, especially fellow candidates Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) and former House Minority Leader Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.). “Gov. Dean can do all the repositioning he wants, but the fundamental truth is that he made many contradictory statements about the war on Iraq and its aftermath,” said Gephardt, taking a shot at the Democratic front-runner. Gephardt doesn't criticize the White House for changing its rationale for war, sometimes several times in the same day.

      Before the war began, the White House accused Saddam of violating 17 U.N. resolutions since the end of the first Gulf War. When that didn't fly—especially for Russia, France and Germany—Bush emphasized Saddam's hidden arsenal of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. When WMD couldn't be found, the White House shifted to Saddam's past genocide against his own people. When that didn't cut it, the administration emphasized the goal of democratizing the former dictatorship. More recently, Bush stresses the importance of a “free Iraq,” something capable of transforming the entire Middle East. Dean never opposed “regime change” in Iraq. He preferred a more intense diplomatic process before jeopardizing lives. “. . . Before our sons and daughters come home in pine boxes, I think it's incumbent upon us to have a better reason that ‘he's an evil man,'” Dean said Sept. 19 2002.

      Calling Dean hypocritical doesn't resolve glaring inconsistencies in the White House position leading up to March 20. Recent attacks say more about the sinking campaigns of Dean's competitors than ostensibly contradictory public remarks. In official GOP and Democratic circles, Dean gets hammered not because he can't reconcile current or past remarks but because his rivals find themselves losing ground. Gore's recent endorsement gives Dean almost unstoppable momentum heading into Iowa and New Hampshire. Dean's rivals know his opposition to Iraq involved more than a few inconsistent public remarks. “I'm not against attacking Saddam Hussein, but we can't do it without a good reason, and so far the president has not made the case,” said Dean Sept. 19, 2002, stating his position on Iraq. Without identifying an imminent threat, Dean believed Bush had other options.

      All the hubbub about Dean's contradictions boils down to last ditch efforts to stop what seems like unstoppable momentum heading into Iowa and New Hamphire. Like Clinton in 1992, Dean best articulates Democrats' lingering frustrations from the 2000 race and current problems with Bush's domestic and foreign policy. Unlike Clinton, Dean has not tried to co-opt or triangulate traditional GOP ideas. His fiery delivery and campaign themes hark back not to George McGovern or Michael Dukakis but to John F. Kennedy, stirring up progressive voters hungry for a new idealism. “He's been an eloquent speaker on the antiwar position that whatever he's said, that is what he is stamped with,” said John Julsman, a senior foreign policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, recognizing that Dean was the first Democratic candidate to take on the president. Inconsistencies or not, Dean is on the right track.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnt.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.