Pacific Views

You omit mention of this significant point from Warblogging:

... Dean's Iraq policy as articulated so far is far from perfect. Dean is, in fact, in favor of the continued occupation and "rebuilding" of Iraq. Specifically, Dean wants to "ineternationalize" the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq by "Working with the UN to build the largest coalition possible to help us succeed in Iraq."

George Paine remains up-in-the-air, but states these misgivings:

... if we stay in Iraq we run the risk of repeating Vietnam: spending years upon years fighting an unwinnable war against a guerilla foe intent on kicking the imperial United States out of its country. In such a case we run the risk of leaving Iraq with our tail between our legs anyway, only with a lot more lives lost and a lot more money spent.

I agree with his conclusion:

Either way, regardless of Dean's position on the occupation of Iraq, he is undoubtedly a significantly lesser evil than Bush.

Nevertheless, while I want justice, reparations and stability for the Iraqis, I do not want the U.S. to "succeed" in its illegitimate occupation of Iraq.

Theologicus:
I responded to your comments on this matter here. I followed the links you pointed to below and typed up a few remarks. Let me know if I understand you correctly.

Check out Arash's website! It's a great site generally and he has this posting about the bombing. I'm sticking to my theory but he's much better informed about the matter.

Thanks, James. I'm not sure I get how you think you responded to my comments.

If you think I'm Jim Wallis, I'm flattered, but, sorry, I'm not he (though he is a friend).

All I meant about a "failure of imagination" was this. The options cannot properly be narrowed down to either pulling out abruptly or else "staying the course" by increasing the U.S. military and financial commitment to Iraq with a modicum of international involvement while the U.S. retains control. The latter seems to be Dean's position.

I agree with the misgivings that I cite from George Paine above.

(Laughing)
No, no, in the comments section! Not the main entry! Look down (I don't have permalinks to comments).

"George Paine remains up-in-the-air, but states these misgivings..."

And on the day that an ideologically perfect candidate, who is also electable, comes up, I'll ask someone to pinch me because I'll be dreaming. I heard Howard Dean speak, and I saw the crowds that came to see him. I spoke with volunteers, supporters, reporters, and the curious on the Sleepless Summer Tour.

Dean has the momentum. He's motivated not only the base of the party, but people who'd given up on politics. And despite what you read in the papers, the people who showed up last weekend were people of all ages.

He can win, I believe it. And he has a more principled stance on the war, IMO, than any of the mainstream establishment candidates. The fact of the matter is that the only other horses in the race with a more perfect attitude on the war don't stand a prayer in hell of either winning the primary, or if they did, of beating Bush in the general election.

He's outraised every other Democratic candidate, and this last weekend he outraised Bush with over 17,000 donations averaging $51. He's got over 300,000 supporters and teams in every state.

Dean wants to at least set us on the path towards universal health coverage, something that an all or nothing proposal won't do. He believes that environmentalism is a matter of creating jobs and advancing our technology, and that's a message that works. And he believes in multilateralism and diplomacy, which is more than I can say for a certain president we all know.

When Dean makes it to the White House, he'll be beholden to all those people who wrote him $51 checks, not to a bunch of 'Rangers' looking for a free ride for their crony capitalism. I'll take that any day.