Dean: Bush Admin "Reckless" (???)
From Iraq to homeland security to public health, President Bush's "reckless" habit of placing "ideology over facts" has resulted in "the most dangerous administration in my lifetime," Democrat Howard Dean charged over the past two days.
Click here!
In Midwest campaign stops and an interview, the former Vermont governor said developments both abroad and at home give credence to his assertion two weeks ago that the United States is "no safer" with the capture of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
"If we are safer, how come we lost 10 more troops and raised the safety alert" to the orange level, Dean said Sunday night in Ankeny, Iowa.
"All the other Democrats pounced on me and beat me up and said how ignorant I was about foreign affairs," he said. "I think most people in America agree with me today and it's only two weeks later."
Get the rest of the story from the Washington Post.
Matt's Chat
"Reckless"? "Ideology over facts"? "Most dangerous administration"? Dr. No, you're killing me here. I have not seen a candidate more into rheotric featuring style over substance than Howeird Dean. The facts didn't seem to get in the way of Mr. Dean's promotion of a ridiculous black helicpoter conspiracy theory (that whole Saudis warned the President about 9/11 crap). Where was the ideology there? Most dangerous administration in your lifetime? Were you born in 2000, Dr. No? Because the Clinton/Gore adminsitration was the most dangerous administration to our national security in MY lifetime. Reckless? Jeez, man, do all liberals project themselves on to people who have a different point of view? Howard Dean is so reckless that if he does lose the nomination, it will because of his OWN MOUTH.Mark's Remarks
I guess it is reckless to back up what you say with strong decisive action. That is what we did, Dr. No. We did not vacillate, as you have, on many issues. We did not seal away our records for political expediency. You did that. We did not point figures at others. We said what we were going to do, gave others the chance to join us, then did it.
We did not fire a 5 million dollar missile at empty tents and a camel's butt. We did not bomb empty baby food factories for points with those who favor national defense. We saw an impending risk, a continuing threat from a rogue state, and we went in and eliminated that threat. We were not reckless. The only place we could be considered reckless is in waiting too long to go in. We gave Iraq plenty of time to change or to even prepare. That is the only place we could be considered reckless.
The US had become known for shooting off its mouth and not backing things up. That was the legacy of the Clinton foreign policy. Or, we would warn the enemy where we were going to hit, then we would hit an empty place with missiles and say we proved our point. As terrorists mutilated American soldiers, as terrorists hit us abroad, we responded with "calls for investigation", calculated missile strikes that did nothing, and posturing. All it did was show terrorists America was a paper tiger. Now, we are fighting back. We are not reckless. We are comatting the results of reckless action of the Clinton Administration. A style of foreign policy you are threatening to bring back, with your calls for worshipping at the altar of the UN, where half of the nations are non-democratic; where the heads of the human rights committees are some of the worst violators, where the former head of the disarmament committee were the chief violators (Iraq!). Yeah, great ideas there, it worked so well. Ask the families of 9/11 how well Clinton's great appeasement strategy and his foreign policy worked. I bet they will not be too praising of such methods.
