Out of the mainstream?
There are times when two news stories put in perfect relief how out of touch the establishment is in this country. The Washington Post has an editorial today in which they try to argue that Dean is out of the mainstream:
Yet there are important differences between the Democratic front-runner, Howard Dean, and the other five. 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."
Coincidentally, CBS has a new poll today in which they ask the public specifically about this:
Dean has said that while he applauds the U.S.' capture of Saddam, it will not make the U.S. any safer, and most voters agree. 85 percent of Democratic primary voters think the threat to the U.S. will either rise or stay just as it is following Saddam's capture -- a feeling shared by 78 percent of all voters nationwide.
Dean's position is only "out of the mainstream" of establishment thinking on Iraq (represented by the Post editorial board). A full 78 percent of all voters agree with Howard Dean! It is the establishment that is out of the mainstream.
Josh Marshal has this update from that radical left-wing organization called the U.S. Army:
Today's Philadelphia Inquirer reports that a intelligence report prepared for the US military in Iraq argued that "seizing Hussein could provoke more attacks by making the insurgency more acceptable to Sunni Muslims who were not members of Hussein's Baath Party elite."
Again I ask, who is out of the mainstream here?