The remark overshadowed Dean’s otherwise thoughtful foreign-policy speech this week and became a lightning rod for other Democrats–and eventually Republicans–if he becomes the nominee. What happens in the next few months could prove Dean prescient if the insurgency in Iraq continues to take American lives, but for now it has refocused the Democratic presidential race on Dean’s meager foreign-policy credentials and his tendency to say impolitic things.
Saddam’s capture boosted President George W. Bush’s poll ratings from 52 to 57 percent in a Pew Center survey, but voters express continued nervousness about the situation in Iraq and whether Bush has a credible exit plan. The war in Iraq is the most expensive manhunt in history ($166 billion and counting) for a man who posed no real threat to the United States despite the administration’s apocalyptic claims.
The president’s job is to bring a sense of priorities to foreign policy. Saddam wouldn’t have made the top 10 list of threats if it weren’t for the grudge the Bush family held. But being right on the merits isn’t enough for Dean if he doesn’t have the credibility to explain himself. Politics demand simplicity, and Dean’s position is more complicated than “we got ’em.” He argues that the war in Iraq diverted resources from the war against terrorism, and that the U.S.-led invasion has become a recruiting tool for terrorists in the Arab world.
Hardcore Deaniacs won’t abandon their leader; they’re cheering him on. But most voters don’t know much about Dean, and the attacks by rival Democrats have jolted the party’s supporters into a bad case of buyer’s remorse even before the first vote is cast. Depending on your vantage point, this is either an opportunity to take a hard look at the man who could be the nominee, or it’s an invitation to a self-destructive campaign among Democrats that will send a weak and wounded nominee into the lion’s den with Bush.
Dean is well on his way to becoming damaged goods. His rivals are doing the Republicans’ dirty work by conflating Dean’s lack of national-security experience with his record of popping off to create the kind of character issue that could prove deadly next year. “This is not a guy who is temperamentally fit to be president,” says an aide to a ranking Democratic senator on the Foreign Relations Committee.
Dean deepened the divide with a domestic-policy speech that spelled out a more confrontational agenda for Democrats than they had become accustomed to under President Bill Clinton. Referencing Clinton’s famous line that, “The era of big government is over,” Dean called for a policy that takes on the Republicans rather than one that merely “limits the damage.” Those were fighting words to the centrist Democrats who take credit for Clinton’s rise to the presidency and to the other Democrats all eagerly clutching at Clinton’s mantle.
Again, Dean is right, if impolitic. The Democrats need to reinvent themselves and behave like an opposition party once again. Clinton wouldn’t disagree with that, but taking a jab at the ex-prez doesn’t sit well with the crowd Dean disdainfully refers to as “the Washington Democrats.”
It’s what makes Dean different, the fact that he takes chances, that he says things that haven’t been vetted by focus groups and consultants. Voters like his attitude, and he may yet ride out the current controversy. Indeed, he hit the right note when Saddam’s capture was announced, describing it as a “great day” for America and its military, for the Iraqis “and, frankly, a great day for the administration.” It was, he added, “a day to celebrate the fact that Saddam’s been caught. We’ll have to wait to see what happens to the campaign later.” Think how much better off he would have been if he had stuck with that tone for the rest of the week.
Nobody doubts Saddam’s crimes, and now that he’s being brought to justice, it becomes harder for the Bush administration to justify why more than 100,000 American troops should remain in the country. Yet without them, the situation on the ground is likely to deteriorate into a full-blown civil war. The insurgency is bigger than Saddam, and the violence is likely to continue.
That’s why Bush played down the impact of getting Saddam. He knows from reports on the ground that this is an ongoing mess, and a potential political problem. “If we cut and run, Iraq will fall apart,” says the Foreign Relations Committee aide. “The White House wouldn’t care if this was the end of Bush’s second term, but if Iraq becomes Lebanon at the beginning of Bush’s second term, then he’s in a world of trouble.” Lebanon is shorthand for civil war without end, but this aide speculates that because of the apparent weakness of Dean, the Democratic front runner, the Bush crowd is overconfident. They might do the statesmanlike thing and stick it out in Iraq, dwelling on the fact that they’re the ones who will have to clean up the mess if they don’t get it right.
