Archive Logo.jpg

December 18, 2003

A little comment on Howard Dean's reaction to the capture of Saddam.

I've not addressed this directly, and the moment is passing (at least until the sound-bite ads start appearing) to do so. But I came across this (forwarded from WorldNet Daily) that sums it up with such nicely tuned invective, that I'll share it here, and just say "What they said!" This refers to Dean's statement that the capture of Saddam does not make America any safer:

...I think Dean may have jumped the shark with this one. And I deeply regret it. No single person better embodies the spirit of the delusional and crank-infected left in this country than Howard Dean. He is the voice of Streisand and all political comics; he is Al Franken with better clothes; he is Congressman McDermott and Sen. Leahy; he is the crowd in front of the A.N.S.W.E.R. rally; and he genuinely represents about 25 percent of the American electorate which is a majority in the Democratic Party.

But not even that 25 percent is that crazy when it comes to Saddam. Howard added megalomania to the witches brew of crazy left thinking, and came down on the side of Saddam's capture not mattering because if Saddam's capture did matter, then Howard's theory of the world would have been flawed.

Howard of the Hague cannot conceive of his view of the world being flawed, so he worked backward to the conclusion that grabbing Saddam doesn't make the United States safer. That is simply and conclusively nuts, and you know it, I know it and most of Dean's people know it.

But Dean doesn't know it. He worked hard on this speech. It is reported that he extensively rewrote it after Sunday's big news. So give him the credit of his own, thought-through conclusions.

Dean isn't fit to be president of the United States because he lacks even a high-school level competency of threat assessment. Period...

To read the whole thing, go to the WorldNet Daily article. I should admit I used to read WND, but I got tired of the news nuggets (good) interspersed with the conspiracy theorys or really (I think, based on info available to me) bad analysis.

Not a good habit, actually. I have a low threshold for that kind of stuff, and the editorial spinning of the news, so I tend to selectively harvest my news from the web (which is not good - you can miss a lot that way unless you are prepared to spend a LOT of time at it) but I'm so emotionally immature that I just couldn't afford to keep replacing the televisions after I put my foot through the screen.