Has Howard Dean Sold Us Out?
An Open Letter from Dennis Kucinich
As
stories of Chairman Dean's move to the center circulate amongst the
Dean-inspired grassroots networks, Rep. Dennis Kucinich puts eloquent
voice to what we've all been wondering.
Dear Gov. Dean–
Speaking
before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul
Wellstone, you were quoted as saying, “Now that we're there [in Iraq],
we're there and we can't get out…. I hope [Bush] is incredibly
successful with his policy now.” Did these words really come from the
same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic
Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed?
Perhaps
you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and
beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only
the latest in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a
strategy of letting “no light show” between Democrats and [Bush] on the
war. Emphasize the economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in
2004.
Following
this advice has kept us in the minority. During the 2002 election
cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side
(the [incumbant's] party always loses seats in the midterm election),
the Democratic leadership in Congress cut a deal with [Bush] to bring
the war resolution to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden
ceremony. The “no light” strategy yielded a historic result: For the
first time since Franklin Roosevelt, [an incumbant] increased his
majorities in both houses of Congress during a recession.
[Bush]
went into the 2004 election with tremendous vulnerability on the war,
which the Democratic Party again sacrificed: by avoiding the issue of
withdrawal from Iraq in the party platform, omitting it from campaign
speeches and deleting it from the national convention.
Why
does failure surely follow from sweeping the war and occupation under
the rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals
of all time, and it has energized grassroots activity like few others.
[Bush]
led the country into war based on false information, falsified threats
and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His warand the
continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for
jihadists who want to hunt Americans, and a cause celebre for stoking
resentment in the Muslim world. His war and occupation squandered the
abundant good will felt by the world for America after our losses of
September 11. He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private
interests through the occupation. And he diverted our attention and
abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the September 11
attack; instead, we are mired in occupation. [Bush]'s war and
occupation in Iraq has already cost $125 billion, nearly 1,600 American
lives, more than 11,000 American casualties and the lives of tens of
thousands of Iraqis. The occupation has been more costly in this regard
than the war.
There is
no end in sight for the occupation of Iraq. [Bush] says we will stay
until we're finished. A recent report by the Congressional Research
Service concluded that the United States is probably building permanent
military bases in Iraq. [Bush] refuses to consider an exit strategy.
The Republican Congress gives [Bush] whatever he asks for.
We can
draw no clearer distinction with [Bush] than over this war. He cannot
right a wrong (unjustified war) by perpetuating a military occupation.
Military victory there is not possible. General Tommy Franks concedes
that. The war will end when we say it's over. The Democratic leadership
should be pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.
That's
what most Democrats want, too. Your performance in the early stages of
the primary, and your recent chairmanship of the party, were made
possible by many, many progressive and liberal Democrats. It was their
hope and expectation that you would prevent the party from repeating
its past drift to the Republican-lite center. They hoped that this time
the party would not abandon them or its core beliefs again.
Yet you
say that you hope [Bush] succeeds. With no pressure exerted from the
leadership of the Democratic Party, the past threatens to repeat itself
in 2006. We may not leave Iraq or our minority status in Washington for
a long time to come.
Dennis J. Kucinich
Blog For Iowa 
What we need is an alternative to Bush policy, which is nothing more than more of the same. Howard had the same position during the primary season, so this is nothing new, but it is also the reason I supported Dennis.
mark
carlisle, iowa
proudtobeaburdenonsociety
LikeLike
I agree with Dennis here. But, I've been thinking about this, and it seems to me that during the primary, Dean said we couldn't just pull out now that we were in, but that there would have to be some systematic or organized pull out. Now, as leader of the Democrats, he's all, “Well, I hope Bush is successful?” We need to take a stand, for heaven's sake. Sounds like Dean is becoming passive on the issue and we can't have another passive Democratic leader. My God, what happens to these people when they get into positions of power?
LikeLike
Here's my answer to someone who sent this blather to me directly. How easy is becoming for supposed Dean supporters to become myopic again and forget the big picture. The Picture is strenthening the Party to regain a foothold in all of America, and has NOTHING to do with spouting a platitude ' hoping Bush succeeds' to avoid misconstrued misinterpretations from the rabid media and people supposedly in your own camp all of them ready to tear a meaningful grassroot change into irrelevent fingerpointing and squabbling.
The amount of destruction and disruption of the economic and social lives worldwide resulting from the fascist Bushite World Order will be massive, and unlike Nader, I'm not in the mood to wish for that level of tragedy to happen JUST to teach America and the world a lesson. So in the process of undercutting and bringing him down, I'd say hope he's succeeds until I can get in control to dismantle and remove the evil he started.
=====My Email Reply to Friend Re: Question to Dean ================
You can stay irrelevant to the majority in the country, OR you can work to get the majority of moderates and voters back into the Democratic camp and 'mouth' the hope Bush will be successful when everyone in their right mind knows his policies won't truly work. But when you have the ilk of the DLC/DNC ready to cut you and your supporters down during the primaries (who ignored/dismissed the bleating pleas of the Kucinich camp as a non-threat, and who glommed with the Dean people later to get to the nationals for any chance at a mouthpiece), the smart political choice is to better avoid the lightening rod of erroneous popular/media critique, and populate the state/precinct parties with your people than rant and whine from the outside with no chance of changing the machine.
If the only way to make a name for yourself and get media attention is to throw stones at the person/group actually working to make a difference, then your moral soapbox doesn't have have much validity if it can't garner widespread backing on it's own and sustain an effective movement on it's own, which Howard Dean has. The fact that he is going coast to coast rallying the Democratic masses, esp in the south makes the little diatribe by Kucinich sound like a jealous backbiting 'me too ism' ploy to stay in the lime light
.
———————–
— my political philosophy, from an on going email dialogue and conversation with a friend, I sent, Jan 28, 2002.
[[The fallacy of all purist-extremist political/social/economic philosophies is believing in a false/fake unsupported theory of human behavior or social science. The only things you can be fairly sure about the probability of how humans will behave, is if it is in their best interest, the *Majority will do it *Most of the time, if it is in the best interest of the Whole or Someone else, the *Minority will do it *Part of the time. For social and economic liberals to think the best of everyone and their behavior will want to do social good for the whole everytime & always is a Fantasy. And likewise, for conservatives to think everyone is going to follow preconcieved rigid morality and 'proper' ethics, compete fairly and not cheat and harm others, Ever, without oversight and regulations is a Fantasy as well. When Libertarians actually believe that if people are left to their own devices with no government controls and deterrents and they will make intelligent decisions eventually to Benefit the whole, that also is not rooted in reality. Finally with Authoritarians, who would believe that only the few or the one can and will make honest/fair and egalitarian decisions for the good of all, without a check/balance is a load. That is why I refuse to adhere to the accusations that those who try to make modest, moderate, encompassing considerations and decisions are wishy-washy or flip-floppers. When a person is mature enough to take into consideration human social/psychological history and varying human emotional needs and behavior, they will take sometime long before pulling the voting lever or pushing the “Yea/Nay” button (as they do in the legislature). That's why the “Founding Fathers” put in checks and balances, everywhere in the Constitutions, and why it's valid to have basic laws and regulations, and build within the system the ability to adjust or remove them as needed. The crux is the wisdom to be aware.]]
——–
But I'm a radical, extreme, fanatical moderate, and am fed up with the extreme on either side left-right that dismisses reality for fantasy and wishful thinking, based on philosophies that have no root in fact of human historical behavior and social systems that have or have never worked. I can recognize biased, twisted and manipulated facts and research. It's never either/or, the truth in life has always been a fine balance of a little of everything in moderation, ying-yang. End of MHO and rant, ignore me as needed.
========================
LikeLike
What I want to hear people talk about is the wholesale dismantling by hook or by crook, the Social Contract made in the1930's by FDR and then trying to cast aspirsions on the Treaty made in WWII, that started the basis for the Cold War, when it was Bush's father/Grandfather and others who were the cause of WWII in APPEASING and SUPPORTING FASCISM and STILL DO TODAY under the guise of neo-con pro-democracy which is still another twisted way to cement their control over the flow of resources and money worldwide, but mollify the masses by saying “Hey They have Democracy!! Yes we run the elections and the candidates, but they are FREE to vote for them!” Not much different than the series of dictatorships throughout the 20th Century the US backed for our continued benefit and power. But since that promulgated the rise of 3rd World terrorist in response to the modern colonism and rascism, NOW Bush and his World Bank/IMF/Triad crew love democracy like new found backstage groupie whores. Atleast Dean know the minds of the Blue Bloods/Skull&CrossBones and turned his back on it and wants the ranks of government to be filled by those who are governed, to be active in their self rule. That is why Both the Republican and DLC hate him and work to discredit him at every point. We the people have the GALL to expect to rule and run our own affairs, when THEY know what's best for us.
LikeLike