Public Please

Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, dodged a tough accusation today from a C-Span caller that some Democratic presidents were war criminals. The C-Span caller argued that the Democratic party had previously supported presidents who were war criminals. The caller claimed that Lydon Johnson was a war criminal with his involvement with the Vietnam war; that Woodrow Wilson engaged in war crimes in World War I; that Bill Clinton engaged in war crimes with his involvement in the Kosovo war. The caller did not provide the reasons for these accusations, in part, due to the limited time permitted by C-Span for the caller. The caller concluded, “You guys [the Democratic Party] had your war crimes too,” suggesting that George W. Bush is not the only president who is a war criminal.

Link to Howard Dean On C-Span Video

The C-Span caller was obviously angry, and did not provide sufficient justification for his claims, but Dean’s response did not respond to the caller’s conclusions in a serious way. Dean took the time to defend Bill Clinton, but provided no justification for his conclusion that Lyndon Johnson was not a war criminal.

The issue here is not just whether Democratic presidents were war criminals, but whether the rhetorical manner in which Howard Dean responded to a C-Span caller was appropriate, respectful, and responsive to public comment. Even angry C-SPAN callers deserve careful answers from our political leaders.

Unfortunatly, Dean evaded the tough question of whether Lyndon Johnson was a war criminal for his leadership in the Vietnam War. He simply did not mention Lyndon Johnson. With respect to Clinton, he argued that Clinton was not a war criminal because the Kosovo war prevented genocide. Howard Dean did not answer the tough ethical and legal questions of the Kosovo War. For example, he did not justify Clinton’s decision to drop bombs on civilians in Kosovo, other than claiming that it saved many other lives. It’s not clear from Dean’s argument, that these civilian bombings were necessary.

Overall, Dean’s defense of the Democratic Party presidents was largely a straw-man, a misleading one he could easily disprove, and a non-sequitor, one that did not respond to the major claims at hand. Dean said, “You can’t run away from using force. Sometimes you have to use force”, as if the C-Span caller had suggested running away from using force, or that he is opposed to using force. The caller did not suggest either of these claims.

What do you thing? Did Howard Dean dodge the tough ethical and legal questions of war? Did any U.S. presidents, Democratic or Republican, commit war crimes?