Glenn Greenwald says time for a reminder about who was right about NK.

[madfloridian]

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/invading-iraq-and-north-korean-threat.html

"Monday, October 09, 2006
Invading Iraq and the North Korean threat -- a historical reminder

On many occasions in the past, I have quoted from this Howard Dean foreign policy speech delivered at Drake University in February, 2003 in order to demonstrate (a) just how prescient he was regarding Iraq (and how painfully wrong about everything his "serious" critics and demonizers were) and (b) the huge gap between Dean's depiction by the media as a far left anti-war pacifist and the actual, highly pragmatic case he was making as to why an invasion of Iraq would weaken U.S. national security and render us less able to deal with other, more important threats -- such as those from North Korea."

"This morning, Mona at Inactivist has an excellent post making that very point -- contrasting Dean's urgent warnings about North Korea as one reason (of many) not to squander our attention and resources on the far less pressing Iraqi "threat," with the White House's ongoing effort to minimize the North Korean threat in order to justify their Iraqi obsession at the expense of all else. Here is just part of what Dean said, the month before our invasion:

We must remember, though, that Iraq is not the greatest danger we face today. Consider, to begin with, North Korea.

The Administration says it is wrong to draw a parallel between the situations in Iraq and North Korea, because those situations are quite different. I agree.

Iraq has let UN inspectors back in. North Korea has kicked them out.

Saddam Hussein does not have a clear path to acquiring nuclear weapons. North Korea may already have them - and is on a clear path to acquiring more.

Saddam Hussein has missiles that can go 40 miles farther than the 90-mile range allowed by the UN. North Korea has tested a three-stage intercontinental ballistic missile that might be able to reach California, Oregon, and Washington.

I marvel at the discipline of this Administration in sticking to its message - that Saddam is the greatest danger - regardless of world developments.

We have the most dangerous situation in East Asia in a decade - perhaps in five decades, and the Administration is treating it as a sideshow. The reason is that North Korea doesn't fit into any of the Administration's preconceived little boxes.

And Glenn adds one last paragraph:

"Contrary to the propaganda campaign enabled by the passive, mindless 2003 media, most anti-war advocates (such as Howard Dean) did not oppose the war in Iraq because war itself is wrong or even because preemptive war in response to a truly imminent threat is wrong. They opposed it because the evidence that Iraq posed an imminent threat was so shady and unconvincing and that the case that no other options short of war existed was so unconvincing (anyone with doubts about that should just go read Dean's speech -- "Secretary Powell's recent presentation at the UN showed the extent to which we have Iraq under an audio and visual microscope. Given that, I was impressed not by the vastness of evidence presented by the Secretary, but rather by its sketchiness")."

And a couple of sites that link to this post:

Howard Dean was right and they were wrong

And this one:
Howard Dean was right.

Thanks, Glenn, for reminding us that the guy Carville and Begala called crazy nearly every day on Crossfire was pretty much on target.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

1. Yup. Add one more to the Educated Liberal Told You So List.

[hootinholler]

2. "the guy Carville and Begala called crazy nearly every day"

Carville was calling him crazy? WTF??

My head wasn't in the game back then.

-Hoot

[madfloridian]

3. Frequently...both of them.

They did it to others as well. Once Carville said he had a "political lobotomy". Yuck.

[madfloridian]

4. Here's what is so odd...

Greenwald posts this paragraph in which he points out how the Bush administration pointed out how wacky Dean was.

"More importantly, Dean pointed out that there were far greater threats to U.S. security than Saddam Hussein -- and he particularly emphasized the threats posed by North Korea and Al Qaeda, which would be neglected -- if not outright ignored and worsened -- by the mammoth, unpredictable and highly dangerous project of invading Iraq and attempting to re-build it into a stable democracy (see e.g. the resurgent Taliban, the uncaptured Osama bin Laden, the takeover of much of Iraq by Al Qaeda and Iran, and yesterday's North Korean nuclear test). The only way to see the Bush movement as "serious, weighty, tough" foreign policy thinkers, and the only way to see Democrats like Dean as "frivolous and weak on defense," is to completely ignore (or distort) history and to operate from the premise that being terribly wrong is a sign of seriousness and wisdom and being completely right is a sign of frivolity and weakness.

And at the same time the Democrats themselves were presenting anything Dean said the same way...as lightweight. Let's not even go into what he said about the world being no safer with Saddam captured. He was right but it was not the GOP who were devastating in their attacks.

We have got to get over this, get out of this mindset.