Home > An Open Letter to Howard Dean
Dear Chairman Dean,
Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, the only senator to vote against the war, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we’re there [in Iraq], we’re there and we can’t get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What’s changed?
Perhaps you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only the latest in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a strategy of letting "no light show" between Democrats and the President on the war. Emphasize the economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in 2004.
Following this advice has kept us in the minority. During the 2002 election cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side (the President’s party always loses seats in the midterm election), the Democratic leadership in Congress cut a deal with the President to bring the war resolution to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden ceremony. The "no light" strategy yielded a historic result: For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt, a President increased his majorities in both houses of Congress during a recession.
The President went into the 2004 election with tremendous vulnerability on the war, which the Democratic Party again sacrificed: by avoiding the issue of withdrawal from Iraq in the party platform, omitting it from campaign speeches and deleting it from the national convention.
Why does failure surely follow from sweeping the war and occupation under the rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals of all time, and it has energized grassroots activity like few others.
President Bush led the country into war based on false information, falsified threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war and the continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want to hunt Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim world. His war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the world for America after our losses of September 11. He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he diverted our attention and abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the September 11 attack; instead, we are mired in occupation. The President’s war and occupation in Iraq has already cost $125 billion, nearly 1,600 American lives, more than 11,000 American casualties and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis. The occupation has been more costly in this regard than the war.
There is no end in sight for the occupation of Iraq. The President says we will stay until we’re finished. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service concluded that the United States is probably building permanent military bases in Iraq. The President refuses to consider an exit strategy. The Republican Congress gives the President whatever he asks for.
We can draw no clearer distinction with the President than over this war. He cannot right a wrong (unjustified war) by perpetuating a military occupation. Military victory there is not possible. General Tommy Franks concedes that. The war will end when we say it’s over. The Democratic leadership should be pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.
That’s what most Democrats want, too. Your performance in the early stages of the primary, and your recent chairmanship of the party, were made possible by many, many progressive and liberal Democrats. It was their hope and expectation that you would prevent the party from repeating its past drift to the Republican-lite center. They hoped that this time the party would not abandon them or its core beliefs again.
Yet you say that you hope the President succeeds. With no pressure exerted from the leadership of the Democratic Party, the past threatens to repeat itself in 2006. We may not leave Iraq or our minority status in Washington for a long time to come.
Dennis J. Kucinich
Forum posts
4 May 2005, 01:16
You will NEVER see Kucinich on t.v., they do not allow anyone who isn’t willing to join the ranks to speak to the American people on television. It is probably against the FCC rules by now.
4 May 2005, 03:39
Hey, Howard. PAY ATTENTION TO DENNIS! You have been co-opted, no doubt. Step down, step aside, step away from the Kool-Aid.
4 May 2005, 19:09
GO DENNIS!!
PEACE TO ALL...BRING OUR TROOPS HOME...STOP THE MURDERING NOW!!
4 May 2005, 22:33
The first paragraph quoted here is different than at the Kucinich website.
"Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we’re there [in Iraq], we’re there and we can’t get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What’s changed?"
http://www.kucinich.us
5 May 2005, 00:57
Living in Canada,I have watched Rep.Kucinich from a distance and have long admired his carying of the torch of hope.Others before (Chomsky, Nader etc.) have taken the difficult journey.May Dennis Kucinich act as a beacon of truth for many years to come,no matter how clouded the outlook becomes.
5 May 2005, 20:37
Thank You Dennis! That needed to be said...especially this part "Military victory there is not possible. General Tommy Franks concedes that. The war will end when we say it’s over." Bush, Cheney and cronies are going to stay as long as they possibly can, no matter how much money or how many lives it costs. This war will not end until we the people demand it. The democrats are the ’opposition’ party- hence the necessity to present an opposition. If Howard Dean knows about the lies that preceeded this war, then he knows the seriousness of a situation where this administration has used a preventable tragedy to attack an oil rich nation, in close proximity to other oil rich nations which coicindentally are also being considered for liberation. How can Howard Dean possibly trust Bush, and wish him success in Iraq?
I do believe that the majority feel that we need to get out of Iraq now. Many democratic leaders are enabling Bush, using the tired excuse that now we are there we must stay and help. This is the equivalent of the rapist telling the victim ’well now that I violated you, I am the only one that can comfort you"...ridiculous. The Iraqis would like us to leave now. We must pay the damages, allow them the revenue from their own resources and the freedom to rebuild their own country. Does Howard Dean really believe that the Iraqis need us?
This letter has sparked quite a bit of much needed discussion on Iraq. Some defend Dean claiming that he never said he was anti-war, and that he always said we had to stay. There can be no doubt that Howard Dean was trying to project the anti-war image, and folks were just confused by the media and rhetoric. The point is Howard Dean is perpetuating lies at this point in time and it needs to stop.
A few have suggested that since Kerry and Dean are pro occupation, that the rest of the democratic party must be as well since they are the ’leaders’. Kerry won the nomination so we all must agree with him? It is more that people had to vote for him, but did not agree with him. First Dean apparently fooled the anti-war crowd into thinking he would get us out of Iraq, then sent them to to Kerry the other darling of the media. I would suggest that these two were forced upon us as leaders and they do not speak for the majority of the democratic party. Considering what we now know of the complicity of the media, and the way the democratic party pretended not to notice the vast discrepency between exit polls results and the election results in quite possibly the most important US election ever- it seems probable that they are all working together for the Bush doctrine of death and greed.
I propose that the DLC spend some of the millions that Kerry gave them after the election to poll the democratic party, heck even the republican party...and ask them ’do you want us to exit Iraq NOW or later in ten years or so’? Do they think the democratic party should take a stand and force the truth on this issue, or continue to enable Bush? Even the Republicans want the democrats to save them from themselves. If the DLC bothered to read the polls they would see that the clear majority in this country are sick of the lies, the war profiteering, the killing and we want it to stop NOW! Speaking for the majority is how you win elections. ’Cut and Run’..The idea that we are keeping the peace... propaganda. Leaving(and apologizing) is called doing the right thing! ’Staying, killing and looting’ as long as possible is the Dean/Kerry/Republican meme?