Reply #26: It's not about being an isolationist it's about imperialism.

[Quixote1818]

Dean has the same view of handling Iraq as Bush and Rice do. He said so. Absolutely we have to stay engaged with the world and Iraq but not try to impose our values on them. Our mistake in Iraq was to minimize the the Sunni Muslims rather than letting them come to the table. Once we took control we should have steeped back and been an honest broker between all sides. Instead the Republicans picked who THEY wanted to run things and saw Iraq as a place they could turn into a perfect little Republican utopia with a flat tax and all the other BS they pulled. So what are we left with? A looming civil war! We should have created a weak central government and given the majority of the the power to the states to decide their own fate. Dean agreed completely with Rice and he was wrong. Also, Iraq is completely different than WWII. It's apples and oranges. The longer we stay the worse things get at this point. Dean would have made the same mistakes the Bush administration did. As she said in her article:

"Dean would impose a 'hybrid' constitution, 'American with Iraqi, Arab characteristics. Iraqis have to play a major role in drafting this, but the Americans have to have the final say.' Women's rights must be guaranteed at all levels." At least the Bushies keep up the "democratic" pretenses and never openly proclaim their authoritarian intentions. The imperious Dean, on the other hand, makes no bones about America's role as the hegemonic power: with the Dean administration at the helm, the Americans will always have the final say. The man isn't running for President. He won't settle for anything less than Emperor.