Vicious attacks on Dean's dissent

In a political sense, Howard Dean chose his words poorly when he said that "The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong." But this is a gaffe in the Kinsley sense -- when a politician tells the truth. It's virtually indisputable that "winning" the war in Iraq is highly unlikely. The only remaining question is whether the US can pull out without sparking full-blown civil war or giving rise to a dangerous Islamic theocracy.

In any case, Dean has every right to speak his mind, and saying he believes that the war is unwinnable does not mean he wants us to lose. Consider the absurdity of this logic: It's also true that I don't think we can kill Osama Bin Laden with a death ray from outer space, but that doesn't mean I oppose taking him out.

Unfortunately, several Republicans and media commentators have continued their long pattern of post-9/11 attacks on dissent. The Los Angeles Times reports that House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Dean "made it clear the Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender" and GOP chairman Ken Mehlman said Dean's statement "sends the wrong message to our troops, the wrong message to the enemy, the wrong message to the Iraqi people."

A New York Post editorial was even uglier (lowlights in bold):

Not all the surrender monkeys live in France.

Take Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean — the sedition-mongering former governor of Vermont who once presumed to the presidency and who now is working overtime for a terrorist victory in Iraq.

..."[The] idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," he said Monday. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway."

Dean doesn't know what he's talking about, on several levels.

The National Guard and Reserves have been an integral part of the Army's "total force" for a generation — there's no bringing them home without collapsing the entire effort in Iraq.

Such an outcome, of course, would be much to Dr. Dean's liking — because, again, it "is just plain wrong" to think "we're going to win the war in Iraq."

...For what Dean did was send an unambiguous message of encouragement to America's mortal enemies both in Iraq and elsewhere around the world.

Hang tough, Dean was telling al Qaeda: You may not be able to defeat the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, but we're doing your work for you right here at home.

A reminder to the demagogues: George W. Bush said "I don’t think you can win [the war on terror]" in 2004. Did he "send the wrong signal" to our troops or "the enemy"? Does that mean he wants us to lose the war on terror? Of course not. It was a candid empirical judgment about the likelihood of "winning" a non-traditional military conflict. But for conservatives eager to blunt growing opposition to the war, it's easier to bludgeon Dean than to consider this obvious double standard.

Update 12/8: This post was picked up by Slate's Today's Blogs feature.

Update 12/8: You read it here first. John B. Judis, writing on TNR Online today, delivers virtually the same line I used above: "Dean's statements perfectly fit Michael Kinsley's definition of a 'gaffe'--an assertion that is impolitic but true."

Comments

[DBL]

Please do not confuse attacks on Dean for what he said with suppression of dissent. When the Government charges Dean with sedition and puts him on trial, then you can talk about suppression of dissent and I'll join you. In the meantime, the outlandish statements he is prone to make are fair game for all kinds of criticism.

Look at it this way, when the Democrats criticized the President's speech at Annapolis, when they accuse him of "lying the country into war" and having no strategy in Iraq, did you think those were attempts by the Democrats to suppress his speech, to intimidate him from speaking out? Of course not.

What's the difference?

[Brendan Nyhan]

There's a clear difference between criticizing the content of someone's speech and suggesting that their statements are an attempt to aid the enemy at a time of war. It may not be the Alien and Sedition Acts, but it's nonetheless part of an anti-democratic campaign to intimidate dissenting speech.

[Nukey]

Brendan,

Seriously. Is Dean intimidated by anyone? Is anyone that criticizes the war feel threatened by anyone who thinks their speech is bad for our troops.

If we agree that what we have is an anti-democratic campaign to intimiate dissenting speech, then you are part of that campaign. You are intimidating all those who are critical of those who say we can't win the war. Don't they have free speech rights, too?

The argument that speech saying we need to get out of Iraq and we have lost or are losing the war is putting our troops in harm's way is a valid one. Are we not allowed to make that argument?

The fact that the enemy is comforted by the voices of the anti-war left is real. The Viet Cong were upfront in their praise of the anti-war effort. As long as Zarqawi and his fellow terrorists feel like they are making progress and are "beating" the United States through internal division and constant internal calls for immediate troop withdrawals, they will work harder and harder until the breaking point.

What say you?

[Brendan Nyhan]

Nice try, but that's not right. I'm not "intimidating" legitimate speech; I'm criticizing those who try to silence others. You have every right to criticize Dean. But it's not right to say he's on the side of Al Qaeda, which is a slur, not a fair response to the content of his statement. There's a difference.

[DBL]

Brendan,
Is it fair, in your view, to say that Dean's speech, regardless of his specific intent, lends aid and comfort to the jihadists who hope to win in DC what they cannot win on the ground in Iraq?

This is what the Soviets used to call "objective" intent. The notion of "objective" intent has been much criticised and for good reasons - there's a difference between someone like Dean, who surely does not want to see jihadists slaughtering infidels, and Noam Chomsky or Ward Churchill, who think the jihadists are waging a just war against Western Imperialism - but nonetheless I don't think Dean and the other anti-war Democrats can escape criticism for the unintended consequences of their speech, which is to give aid and comfort to the enemy. I don't view that as "suppression of dissent" in any way, shape or manner.

[Brendan Nyhan]

"Is it fair, in your view, to say that Dean's speech, regardless of his specific intent, lends aid and comfort to the jihadists who hope to win in DC what they cannot win on the ground in Iraq?"

No.

To elaborate, we can tell stories all day about what the terrorists want or don't want. Some people think Bush played right into Osama Bin Laden's hands by invading Iraq and creating a massive confrontation between Islam and the West. The point is that we just don't know what they actually want, and ultimately it's irrelevant. This is a democracy. Using the language of treason -- "aid and comfort" -- to describe legitimate political speech is out of bounds.

For more of my work on this, check out the Spinsanity archives.

[Michael Koplow]

Assuming all the quotes in BN's post are correct, the NY Post misquoted Dean, who used the word "unfortunately."