 |
NEXTopia
Welcome to NEXTopia, a Web diary in which NEXT writers — and readers — share their evolving thoughts on a variety of issues. The opinions you read below are those of the individual writers, not necessarily those representing The Seattle Times.
Respond to NEXTopia
Currently, NEXTopia cannot automatically post readers' comments on the blog. However, writers and editors will regularly post your name and comments unless you note otherwise. |
January 26, 2004
| Re: Dean off the edge |
First, let me say how glad I am that Dean is not likely to become the Democratic presidential candidate. It's not that I have anything against him politically. But I find some perverse pleasure in the way all the conservative pundits have become obsessed with Dean--perhaps even worse than his own vicious Democratic rivals--only to have it all, in the end, be a lot of ammunition and time wasted in the wrong direction. At least it gave them some fresh material other than the same stale Clinton comparisons.
As to Nigel's latest anti-Dean misfire, I would not be so quick to dismiss his comment. Of course, it is logical to assume that removing Saddam would make Iraqis' lives better, and in most ways it probably did, at least in the short term. But then, to be certain, we'd have to do a little math. And for a comprehensive look, we'd also want to consider the means and aftermath of his removal.
We'd have to take the number of Iraqis killed or directly terrorized by Saddam, and compare them against the hundreds of thousands that have died due to the bombings and sanctions during the Bush Sr. and Clinton years, the thousands of casualties of the Iraq war, the many who are suffering from the damaged infrastructure, internal conflicts and unemployment the war has caused, and the thousands more who are likely to be killed and/or oppressed in the coming years of civil strife, religious and ethnic conflicts, and terrorist insurgencies. And that's even if an extremist Islamic government doesn't take control, ala the Taliban.
Then we would want to compare this against potential outcomes, had a true international effort been led by the UN, diplomatic, economic or military, rather than a US led invasion with a paper "coalition" and a half-baked neo-con vision for the aftermath.
Dean's problem isn't that he's off the edge. It's just that he speaks on complex matters in overly simplified and incomplete terms, and that's not a good idea for a politician in an ideologically divided sound-byte society.
Written by Randy Henderson, a regular contributor to NEXT.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Colleen Pohlig at January 26, 2004 01:42 PM |
|
Back to top