On Howard Dean

The head of the Democratic Party said Wednesday that unchecked U.S. reliance on foreign oil helps fund terrorists and the nation must address its energy needs in a way that creates jobs.

Howard Dean, in a speech to the American Jewish Committee, said new industries should emerge to develop alternative fuel sources. The other option, he said, is continued support of Islamic schools that teach hatred of the United States and Israel.

"We are committed to ending our standing by, while our oil money (provides) indirect funding of fundamentalist Islamic schools all over the world," he said.

Dean took a swipe at the Republican Party, saying the Democratic Party is one of inclusion and religious freedom.

"I was recently asked about the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties," Dean said. "When it comes right down to it, the essential difference is that the Democrats fundamentally believe it is important to make sure that American Jews feel comfortable being American Jews."

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who is Jewish, addressed the group on Tuesday.

Dean decried energy industry subsidies, suspected price gouging and what he called a lack of leadership in Iraq. He also said any confrontation with Iran should be handled in a better way than the one with Iraq.

If Democrats were truly committed to making sure that American Jews feel comfortable about being American Jews, they'd stop ankle biting the Administration on acting in Iraq, and undercutting on Iran, not to mention caving into the worst that the 60s retread anti-war Left has to offer this country (which is nothing but defeatism and decades of failed policies).

The modern Democratic party has failed to elaborate on a national foreign policy that says anything other than that they oppose what Republicans are doing. Whether it's Middle East policies, nonproliferation, or preempting threats before they become imminent threats that are no longer within our ability to control, the Democrats have repeatedly been on the wrong side of the issue.

What Dean doesn't realize is that American Jews are like all other Americans - they're concerned about their pocketbooks, the rising price of oil, terrorism, and now border control and immigration. All are interrelated and none of the Democratic party's solutions for the problems actually address the problems. Investigations into price gouging will not change the price by a single penny. It's a feelgood move by politicians who are completely incapable of doing the right thing - opening up areas to energy exploration. Such moves, like permitting drilling in ANWR or adding cumbersome red tape to the construction of new refineries and other energy facilities are blocked by Democrats who think that they're doing something good for the country. They're instead pandering to the radical minority of environmentalists.

So, instead of being able to build new nuclear power plants, hydroelectric facilties, wind power facilities, or fossil fuel facilities using resources recovered within our own borders, we're increasingly relying on unstable regimes that are often oppose US. We rely on Venezuelan oil despite the fact that Hugo Chavez is doing everything possible to undermine the US in Latin America. Reliance on Middle East oil skews our national foreign policy and national defense posture because we have to rely on regions whose religious beliefs are antithetical to our own.

Decades of realpolitik have resulted in our ongoing pressure on Israel to accept deals that no rational country should ever have to make. And many of those decisions were put forth to make sure that our ability to secure supplies of oil were not affected.

As for Dean's comments about Iran, he says absolutely nothing of substance except that Democrats would do something different than what was already done on Iraq.

For those that forget what happened with Iraq, since 1991, Iraq was the focus of 17 UN Security Council resolutions seeking enforcement of sanctions, and obligations under the 1991 cease fire agreement. Ongoing violations of the agreement occurred when Iraq would repeatedly fire on US and British aircraft operating in the no-fly zones. Iraq refused to fully cooperate with inspectors seeking to determine the extent of the Iraq WMD programs, including their nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons systems and delivery systems.

This situation was an ongoing mess and, in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, could no longer be tolerated. This was an ongoing threat that had to be dealt with before it could become imminent. That, combined with the ongoing humanitarian crisis (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity) caused by Saddam's cruel reign of terror, were met with military force finally in 2003.

We're now facing a regime right next door that is following Iraq's blueprints - from ongoing human rights violations, support of terrorism, and a nuclear program that has been unchecked by sanctions or an ineffectual IAEA.

Dean thinks that we have to do something different with Iran than with Iraq. I'd suggest dealing with the threat sooner, rather than later after months and years of diplomatic nonsense give Iran the time it needs to obtain sufficient nuclear materials to make enough nuclear weapons that any military action would result in the potential use of said weapons.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Iran would ever stop its nuclear program, or that diplomacy will solve this problem when Iran repeatedly states that it has no intention of giving up its program and that there's nothing that countries opposed to Iran's intentions can do short of taking military action. That, combined with China and Russia running interference for the mullahs, means that Iran has the upper hand.