Dean under fire
Howard Dean is catching all kinds of hell this week, in large part for a churlish line in his foreign policy speech that I didn’t mention in my own critique: “the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.” TNR Bush-hater Jonathan Chait how has an anyone-but-Dean blog. Andrew Sullivan links to two examples: Spinsanity ...
Howard Dean is catching all kinds of hell this week, in large part for a churlish line in his foreign policy speech that I didn't mention in my own critique: "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." TNR Bush-hater Jonathan Chait how has an anyone-but-Dean blog. Andrew Sullivan links to two examples: Spinsanity and the Washington Post. Here's an excerpt from the latter:
Howard Dean is catching all kinds of hell this week, in large part for a churlish line in his foreign policy speech that I didn’t mention in my own critique: “the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.” TNR Bush-hater Jonathan Chait how has an anyone-but-Dean blog. Andrew Sullivan links to two examples: Spinsanity and the Washington Post. Here’s an excerpt from the latter:
[T]here are important differences between the Democratic front-runner, Howard Dean, and the other five [prominent Democrats]. In his speech Monday, Mr. Dean alone portrayed the recruiting of allies for Iraq as a means to “relieve the burden on the U.S.” — that is, to quickly draw down American forces. Only he omitted democracy from his goals for Iraq and the Middle East. And only Mr. Dean made the extraordinary argument that the capture of Saddam Hussein “has not made Americans safer.” Mr. Dean’s carefully prepared speech was described as a move toward the center, but in key ways it shifted him farther from the mainstream. A year ago Mr. Dean told a television audience that “there’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies,” but last weekend he declared that “I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States.” Mr. Dean has at times argued that the United States must remain engaged to bring democracy to Iraq, yet the word is conspicuously omitted from the formula of “stable self-government” he now proposes. The former Vermont governor has compiled a disturbing record of misstatements and contradictions on foreign policy; maybe he will shift yet again, this time toward more responsible positions.
Now Michael Kinsley goes after him as well:
Howard Dean’s comments this week offer both a negative and a positive case study. He broke the most obvious rule: Pretend, at least, that you’re enjoying the party. Don’t stint or quibble.
Looks bad for Dean… or does it? This is not the first time Dean has put his foot in his mouth and lived to tell the tale. None of the Dean’s campaign’s comparative advantages are really threatened by this latest blunder. It’s already clear that DC Democrats loathe and fear Dean — to his base, however, this is just feeding the beast. If anything, the hope these criticisms offer to the rest of the Democratic field merely increases the likelihood that all of them will stay in the race, splintering the anyone-but-Dean vote and letting him win by plurality. That, plus some key endorsements, should erase this talk of third parties.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy

Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.