Monday, January 26, 2004

Howard Dean - Iraqis Worse Off After War

I don't know what to make of this guy. He seems to be addicted to making statements that border on the outlandish. One would think he'd have been a bit more cautious after his last gaffe with "the scream", but no, he has to go and make yet another wierdo statement.

MANCHESTER, N.H. - Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean (news - web sites) said Sunday that the standard of living for Iraqis is a "whole lot worse" since Saddam Hussein's removal from power in last year's American-led invasion.

"You can say that it's great that Saddam is gone and I'm sure that a lot of Iraqis feel it is great that Saddam is gone," said the former Vermont governor, an unflinching critic of the war against Iraq (news - web sites). "But a lot of them gave their lives. And their living standard is a whole lot worse now than it was before."

[............]

"Now I would never defend Saddam Hussein," Dean told the "Women for Dean" rally. "He's a horrible person. I'm delighted he's gone. Would there not have been a better way to get rid of him in cooperation with the United Nations?"

Dean's comments here simply make no sense. If Iraqis were better off under Saddam than they now are without him, what difference would "cooperation with the United Nations" have made? Would fewer people have died in a UN-approved war? Would less infrastructure have been damaged? War is war, nothing short of war would have removed Saddam, and it makes no difference to a man's chances of survival whether the bomb that flattens his home does so with UN approval or otherwise; Howard Dean is simply spewing dishonest partisan rubbish.