Dean is so keen on trashing Bush that he's blind to history and the "facts" of the current "war" on terror. So the author of the following would have you believe. Conveniently, there's no mention of PNAC and BushCo's adoption of its manifesto as policy. Whatever the Siministration accomplishes to defeat terrorism will be secondary to their pursuit of that policy, not their primary objective as put forth by Ferris' RNC talking point memo:
To achieve credibility, Dean needs help with anger, history.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/7552993.htmI have a hard time taking Howard Dean seriously. There was one moment on the day Saddam's capture was announced when Dean sounded gracious, almost statesmanlike. It made me actually want to check out his next day's foreign policy address.
However, after reading it (www.deanforamerica.com), I've decided that if it's a choice of Dean vs. the President next November, I'll vote for George W. Bush.
snip
And, of course, he's used force when he thought it necessary - despite often overwhelming, and sometimes hysterical, opposition. Disagree with Bush or not, there is no question that he takes seriously his oath to protect the country and its people, will act resolutely on his convictions, and has put the world on notice that it's not business as usual on terrorism - all terrorism, not just what can be linked to Sept. 11.
We've yet to see if that resolve can translate into a sustainable democracy in Iraq, but for right now, if the choice is anger vs. resolve, I know which way I'll vote.