Dean does not realize "tyranny's easy" but "democracy's hard".

[madfloridian]

After all the gems he came up with on FTN yesterday, I was expecting more attacks from the right wing blogs. There were some, but not as many as expected. This one is almost laughable IMHO.

It is critical of Howard Dean because he said women would have less rights under the new Iraqi constitution. It is the strangest way to attack someone, and I think George Bush used those terms early on. My hubby says he did. Anyway...it is sort of funny to defend the loss of women's rights by saying "Democracy's hard."

http://www.bloggernews.net/showstory.asp?page=blognews/stories/WN0000386.txt

"At first glance, it would seem that Howard Dean has stuck his foot in it once again. This weekend on CBS's Face the Nation, Dean stated that "It looks like today, and this could change, as of today it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq." Naturally, many on the right and in the Blogosphere (myself included) were quick to pounce on the Dr. Dean for seeming to say that a democratic Iraq was worse than a tyrannical Saddam-led Iraq. This was not entirely fair, though closer examination still doesn't leave the DNC Chairman any closer to vindication."

(No, Dean did not say that...just making it up as you go along.)

This paragraph is just sad, like they can not grasp the terrible thing we have done.

"Dean and other lefties jumped on the news that Iraq might use sharia law to score political points in a game of gotcha, but the reality of the situation is that women (and men) in Iraq are not going to put up with anything less than they've already gained. Democracy is now in the bloodstream, it's in the water they drink, in the air they breath and no constitution is going to take that away without a fight. This is tough stuff. It's going to be a tough process. Democracy is hard, tyranny is easy. Many on the Left long to the days of Saddam the way they long for the days of Tito in Yugoslavia. Wasn't it really better, they may ask in a moment of honesty, to have feuding factions kept from fighting each other by a despot than letting them be free with the risk of civil war? Aren't a few mass graves or an occasional chemical weapons wipeout of a community of Kurds a small price to pay for an enduring "peace?"

(What does one say to that? How pathetic to keep holding on to illusion.)

Hard work getting Democracy.

[The Traveler]

1. Let us presume that the State of California

rose up in opposition to the Federal government and allied itself with, say, China in armed conflict against the nation. What, I wonder, would the likely neo-con response to such an event be?

It is easy to loathe S. Hussein, and I do. But the question remains legitimate. I have often wondered how their response in this hypothetical situation would be distinct from Saddam's. While they have yet to get to the point of murdering defeated Olympic athletes, they seem to nonetheless share many characteristics.

[Hidden Stillness]

2. Dean is Right, and It Will Not Be Democracy

If Iraq imposes Islamic Sharia law, women will know what oppression is, the like of which they have not had before. It will be as bad as Saudi Arabia, Iran and everywhere else that has it. We went to war in Iraq so it could come to this, and invent another murderous theocracy?

[madfloridian]

5. I respect that a man recognizes this.

It is going to be very hard for the women there. I hear some have already been forced into burqas.

[thoughtanarchist]

3. Reason to invade Iraq #254:

enduring peace.

:eyes:

With all that democracy in the Iraqi bloodstream I'd say we're set to pull out.

[madfloridian]

4. What he said about women.....very thoughtful, concerned, worried.

Dr. HOWARD DEAN (Democrat, Former Governor, Vermont; Chairman, Democratic
National Committee): Well, I think, first of all, we need a plan. The saddest article, in a series
of very sad articles about people losing their lives--the saddest article I saw was in The
Washington Post this morning, talking about the insiders of the administration saying, `Well,
now we misjudged. We really can't achieve any of the things--or many of the things we said
that we were going to achieve when we went.' Eighteen hundred and fifty Americans lose their
lives because the president can't figure out what he's going to do, had no plan when we got
there and has not plan when we get out.
First thing we need to do have a plan for leaving. And the second thing we need to do is to
make sure that to the best of our ability we can influence the writing of the constitution. It
looks like today, and this could change--as of today, it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq
than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq. That's a pretty sad commentary
on this administration's ability to do anything right"

Talk in between.

SCHIEFFER: Should we leave now?

Dr. DEAN: I think that's going to be very problematic. I mean, I think we've gotten in there,
we've made a huge mess in there, we've created a terrorist danger for the United States where
one did not exist before. But to pull out before they even have a chance to write their
constitution I think is wrong. But I do think that time is coming very quickly. And if it turns
out that this constitution really does take away the rights that women have enjoyed in Iraq
before, then I can't imagine why we're there."

[JNelson6563]

6. Dean's takin' it to 'em

and all they can do in response is spin and lie. Typical. I'm just glad Dean pushes on, undeterred.

Julie

[Jacobin]

7. They're still pretending its gonna be a democracy

that we IMPOSED on them????

:rofl:


:rofl:


:rofl:


NOBODY believes that shit anymore!

[madfloridian]

8. Yep, they are still making believe we are in control.

They simply can not give up their devotion, and see the light.