This piece:
High-Decibel Dean Silent On Iraq
is MSM's typical crap on Howard Dean, but it did raise an interesting question.
Dean's colorful language has caused him trouble, but a case can be made that his silence has created more trouble. Specifically, his virtual silence on the Iraq war since he has become DNC chair, despite polls saying a majority of Americans now believe the war was not worth it and 60 percent believe it's time to bring the troops home. The grizzly statistics that almost 1,700 American troops and another 85 U.S. private contractors have been killed seem more compelling than Dean's new focus on ethics in government, pensions and ramping up state parties.
Out of 190 press releases on the DNC's web site, only three mention Iraq and then only in the context of other issues. Dean's speech on Saturday urging Democrats to put a moral component into their politics was devoid of any rhetoric about the morality of the Iraq war, something that originally endeared him to the Democratic base. And none of his fundraising appeals so far have emphasized the war.
Dean's compromise when he took over the DNC was to let the Democratic officials who he once maligned determine policy. But one wonders how much more credible he would be on the issue of morality and how much more effective he would be in motivating his base if he resumed a leadership role on the war in Iraq.
I've been pondering the same question for a while. Why has Dean been so quiet on Iraq War these days?
My opinion is that this may be Howard Dean's strategic choice. Let's face it, Iraq mess is forever linked to G.W. Nobody at this stage really has any solution.
Howard Dean may simply wait on the sidelines and is ready to pounch when G.W. decides to cut and run.
What's your opinion?