Dean urged Clinton to take unilateral action in Bosnia

[Turley]

http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com+-+Dean+urged+Clinton+to+take+unilateral+action+in+Bosnia&expire=&urlID=8907339&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fpoliticselections%2Fnation%2Fpresident%2F2004-01

Wesley Clark anyone?

[Chico Man]

1. Read the letter

Its actually impressive, and illustrates his foreign policy skill..

Comparing this war in Bosnia and the War in Iraq is like comparing apples and oranges, once again.

Dean makes sure to point out "(The United States) must give, and (has) given, this policy with our allies and with the United Nations every opportunity to work..."

Also, "Unilateral Action" in this case is 100% different that "unilateral action" taken by GWB in Iraq. Dean's "Unilateral" actions mainly consisted of diplomatic actions such as embargo's, etc. We are certainly not talking about a full force American invasion of Bosnia or Yugoslavia. Dean reccomended using our military to "support the bosnian government.." - not invade and occupy a sovereign state.

Here is the letter: read it before jumping to conclusions: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-01-14-dean-letter_x.htm

Its funny how these "attacks" on Dean are most likely going to end up solidifying and even expanding his base.

[Turley]

3. I just wonder if the Clintons dropped this bomb

to help Wes derail the Dean Express?

[Chico Man]

4. I could not see them doing that..

At least I would think that the Clinton's would see this piece as really insignificant and certainly not capable of derailing the Dean Express.

With all of Dean's momentum it would take quite the story to make an impact, IMHO. I don't think they are going to find what they are looking for. (Another Dean plus).

[liberalnurse]

2. No thanks. I'm not interested in a rookie

Democrat at this phase of the process. I'm leary of Clark's message based upon his vast swing of political affiliations he has voiced over a predictable length of time; 10 years.

I just don't trust him without a proven track record. Our experience with *bush has devestated our nation here in the homeland and nationally. We as a people, a country are in the negative with credibility. I want a Democrat with experience to take us back home.

[ryanroat]

5. another feather in Dean's cap

Dean asked Clinton to act after the UN and NATO actions had proved ineffective. He asked for air power, not ground troops, and efforts consistent to what was being used to contain Saddam. Essentially he wanted Bosnia shut down the way Iraq had already been shut down.

This is another feather in Dean's cap. He was proved correct that Saddam was contained, and he asked for similar measures to contain Bosnia. Good for him.

[Ripley]

6. Agreed, and Welcome to DU.

:toast:

I think it's hilarious that Rummy's spin now is that we had to go into Iraq because they were firing anti-aircraft guns at us!! What he failed to say is that 1) they never shot down one of our planes and 2) we were dropping bombs on them for 10 years.

[trapper914]

43. Not to mention...

...the no-fly zones were illegal.

[styersc]

29. In reality he was not calling for unilateral action-

he was asking for the US to help a struggling Bosnian people. We were not asked to go in and fight a war on our own, we were asked to take sides and help the Bosnian's to repel massacre by the Serbs. The Bosnians would, in effect, be a "coalition" with the US.

[KittyWampus]

7. Dean Displays Ignorance: He Would Not Use Ground Troops

Ground troops must NEVER be off the table when planning any Military campaign as that limits the Forces options.

Doing so would:

Display weakness and lack of resolve
Potentially damages Forces effectiveness
Takes a leverage point off the table

What Dean fails to understand is that waging war is a PROCESS with diplmacy involved at every step along the way. Taking ground forces off the table hobbles the DIPLOMATIC ARM OF WAGING WAR.

And saying Dean would have armed the Bosnian Muslims is not an answer because WE COULD NEVER RELY ON THEM TO ACCOMPLISH MISSIONS.

They would NOT HAVE HAD THE MILITARY READINESS NOR CAPABILITIES to participate with the speed, force and command that the United States own Service.

[Chico Man]

8. Dean has always stated he we would use all means necessary to..

ensure the safety of the United States.

Ground troops were not necessary in Bosnia. If there were a conflict in which it would make sense to have ground troops, I trust Dean would make the right call.

[KittyWampus]

10. Dean Swallowed The Neo Con Strategy Hook Line & Sinker

First of all-

Taking US Ground Troops off the table from the get go eliminates a Bargaining Tool during negotiations... both BEFORE AND DURING A WAR.

Simply relying on bombing without the option of ground troops is the Neo-Con's preferred strategy.

Secondly-

Not using Ground Troops is a potentially ineffective strategy which prolongs conflicts and makes the AFTERMATH PROBLEMATIC.

Without TRAINED armed forces that the US would provide... what would happen after the bombing stopped?

THIS IS A BIG PART OF WHTY IRAQ WAS A FUCK UP!

Further, Diplomacy is an actual part of WAGING WAR. You need to be able to threaten to send in ground troops.

Bosnian Muslims given American arms would NOT have the training, speed, force or command to have been effective DURING airstrikes or AFTER airstrikes.

[Chico Man]

11. OK, sounds like you have a chip against Dean regardless of the situation

How did we succeed in Bosnia, anyhow? And how is Dean saying that he would not have trained ground troops ready to go at a moments notice?

Please cite specific examples. He was simply agreeing with Clinton's strategy at the time. To use this single letter as proof of Dean's lack of war waging experience is rather short sighted, wouldn't you say?

[Merlin]

12. ANNOUNCING ground troops are not an option was Clinton's goof, not Dean's

Dean does not suggest that Clinton announce to the world that ground troops are not an option. That was one of Clinton's most collossal gaffes. You never give the enemy the benefit of your thinking as to restraints in a conflict.

[KittyWampus]

20. Dean- WHILE I COMPLETELY AGREE... NO GROUND TROOPS

"While I completely agree with you that no ground troops should be committed for other than humanitarian purposes in Bosnia, I would ask that you take the following steps in Bosnia.

First, lift the arms embargo as it applies to the Bosnian government.
Second, enforce a full embargo of the sort that is now in effect in Iraq on the Bosnian Serbs and upon Yugoslavia.
Third, break off diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia.
Fourth, commit American air power to support the Bosnian government until the situation is stabilized and the civilian murders and atrocities by the Bosnian Serbs have been stopped.

[Merlin]

48. You completely miss the point. I'm responding to your own words.

You said, in the post above:

"Taking US Ground Troops off the table from the get go eliminates a Bargaining Tool during negotiations... both BEFORE AND DURING A WAR."

and also:

"Diplomacy is an actual part of WAGING WAR. You need to be able to threaten to send in ground troops."

I agree. But my point is that nowhere does Dean suggest Clinton should ANNOUNCE he won't use ground troops. He just says not to use them.

But Clinton, on his own, actually ANNOUNCED that he wouldn't use them, and THAT was a foolish mistake.

As to your other two assertions, viz:

"Simply relying on bombing without the option of ground troops is the Neo-Con's preferred strategy."

and:

"Not using Ground Troops is a potentially ineffective strategy which prolongs conflicts and makes the AFTERMATH PROBLEMATIC."

Using air power exclusively is an old misapprehension of the war mongers of all stripes, not just the neocons. It goes back to the firebombing of Dresden, which--rather than discourage the Germans--actually caused an increase in war material production, because it pissed off the people so much.

Ground troops are nearly always necessary. BUT--and this is a big BUT--you will recall that we won the war in the Balkans without committing ground troops. But it is a rare war that can be won in such a manner.

[The Magistrate]

52. It Is Worth Pointing Out, My Friend

By the end of that conflict, the Kossovo Albanians were themselves supplying the ground troops, in the form of village militias and K.L.A. recruits.

You are quite right that President Clintom was mistaken to announce he would not commit ground troops, although that might be a useful thing to announce shortly before actually committing soldiers, eh?

Most of this seems a tempest in a tea-pot to me: the intervention in Kossovo was a good thing, and forceful intervention in the Balkans damned belated when it finally came. Anyone who urged it was correct.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

38. Removing Saddam was a "means"

Sorry but even it contributed to just .1% of our safety then that is a "means" which counted.

meanwhile the story continues

[mouse7]

15. You mean like the CLARK Campaign in Kosovo?

Gee... isn't that the EXACT type of campaign that Clark actually ran in Kosovo that he has won all sorts of awards and launched his Presidential campaign?

By the way... Dean has never said he was anti-war. He said he was anti-Iraq war.

[maxrandb]

17. But I thought

that the problem with Dean was that he was a "peacenik"? Don't you love how the neo-cons want to have it both ways. Problem is, the "do-do" heads and the freepers will conveniently call Dean weak and a wimp, or about the most slanderous thing I've ever heard from Flush (Nikita Dean), but then they'll throw something out there like this. My question to the wing-nuts is:

Ok, which is it? He is not qualified to be president because he is too weak, or too tough?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

22. NOT Due to ANY Lack of Trying by Clark

Clark was the single biggest proponent of ground troops, or at the very least the credible THREAT of ground troops, in Kosovo. He was overruled by Clinton (and/or Cohen/Shelton).

DTH

[kayleybeth]

23. Actually

Clark wanted to use ground troops in Kosovo and asked Clinton for permission to send ground troops, but Clinton had been advised not to send them, for political reasons. I do not have a link, but this is according to Sidney Blumenthal in his book, The Clinton Wars.

[nibbana]

9. Bush 1 Could have used some moral guidance

A similar letter should have been written to Bush 1 that could have eliminated the mass graves filled with Shiites that we are now uncovering in Iraq. If Bush and Powell had done the moral thing those mass murders could have been stopped.

[newyawker99]

47. Hi nibbana!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[progressivebydesign]

13. Hmmmm... another Clark supporter generated Dean swipe?

I see the pattern here on DU now. Clark "supporters" are using DU as nothing more than a PR tool for Clark. They appear to do nothing but 1) Post as many potentially negative finds as possible, with comments about how much better Clark is. 2) Attack anything positive about Dean. That is so GOP, and what most of us hate about what politics has become.

About that letter: I think it's great that a Governor was actively interested in foreign policy. I think he had the right approach. Committing ground troops to that conflict smells like quagmire. The situation called for a police action, and a quick, decisive solution. Ground troops are not the answer.

I saw the press release from the Clark Dir. of Communications asking people to go to DU and Free Republic to 'get the facts out'. That explains a lot. Nowhere on Dean's site do they ask us to do that. And.. no way in fucking hell would they EVEN ask us to visit Freeper-ville. That's just scary.

[Chico Man]

14. I'd have to agree with your observations

It does seem to be the trend.

[Crunchy Frog]

34. And it's only a one way street

Nobody else engages in that sort of behavior against any other candidate.:nopity:

[The Magistrate]

39. That Is True, Ms. Frog

No supporters of any other candidate have unearthed materials they feel detrimental to their chief opponents, and fetched same here to Democratic Underground. No supporters of any other candidate have made disparaging comments against candidates they oppose. No persons who support other candidates have signed themselves up recently on Democratic Underground to advocate for the candidate they support. These things are the exclusive prerogative of persons who support Gen. Clark as the best available nominee for President by the Democratic Party.

There is one thing supporters of Gen. Clark, by my observation, do not much do here. We do not imagine those who disagree with us are paid agents or Republican moles, answering to the invisible wires of some vast conspiracy, without which there would be nothing but agreement with us expressed. We may well feel some of the opposition to us is foolish and poorly grounded, and that its expression is sometimes juvenile and disruptive, but we understand that it is sincere and originates from particular persons, not vast unseen forces against which we, the valiant initiates, must gamely struggle on behalf of the dullard mass of human-kind, that cannot see these dark designs of the Evil Ones....

[Chico Man]

44. Was there not a call on the Clark website..

To go to free republic and democratic underground preaching Clark?

I mean, on my website, RIForDean.org (http://www.rifordean.org), I do provide a link to Democratic Underground, but I certainly would leave the posting up to the individual.

[The Magistrate]

50. And Your Point Is What, Sir?

On your site in support of Gov. Dean, you seek as you see best fit to direct persons here to Democratic Underground to comment on the matter.

On the Clark campaign site, a message asks persons to act in the same matter.

Any material difference escapes me.

You may comfort yourself with the delusion that all support for Gen. Clark here, and all opposition to Gov. Drean, is somehow artificial or contrived by nefarious means, but you know it is not true. You know there are real attractions to Gen. Clark, and real potential strengths to his candidacy, just as you know there are potential difficulties with that of Gov. Dean. There is certain to be disagreement in such a matter among the habitues of this forum, many of whom are very sophisticated politically, many of whom are committed radicals, and many of whom are both.

[Chico Man]

54. I'm simply supporting the observation regarding the pattern of..

posts that seem to be Dean derogatory and Clark supportive.

I simply mention DU as a link. I'd be happy to remove the link, and I would still trust that removing the DU link from that website (or any other in support of Gov Dean) would have no effect whatsoever on voters opinions across the country.

I could remove the single link from Democratic Underground from the site and trust that the word would still get out.

Here is what we are doing in Rhode Island for Governor Dean:

Newport Literature Drop - Jan. 15th 5:00 PM
South County visibility trifecta part 1 - Jan. 16th 3:30 PM
North Providence literature drop - Jan. 16th 6:30 PM
South County visibility trifecta part 2 - Jan. 17th 10:00 AM
North Providence visibility event - Jan. 17th 3:00 PM
South County visibility trifecta part 3 - Jan. 18th 10:00 AM
Johnston literature drop - Jan. 20th 6:30 PM
Johnston visibility event - Jan. 21st 6:30 PM
Woonsocket literature drop - Jan. 22rd 6:30 PM
Woonsocket visibility event - Jan. 23rd 6:30 PM
Providence primary ballot lottery at the State House - Feb. 4th 5:00 PM

Yes, I am proud of the honesty and sincerity that at least I have witnessed with the Dean campaign here in Rhode Island. I'm certainly proud that we do not intend of trashing Clark or any of the other candidates - and I'll continue this even if Dean is not the leader in the polls.

We do ask our volunteers to get the word out, but mostly face to face. And nowhere do we intend on digging up dirty secrets with respect to other candidates searching for that "Monica Lewinskyish" scandal that will bring them down. Not that that is what Clark supporters are doing, but a pattern has emerged, and that is something that I cannot simply pass off...

[The Magistrate]

56. You Are Awfully Cute, Sir

"And nowhere do we intend on digging up dirty secrets with respect to other candidates searching for that "Monica Lewinskyish" scandal that will bring them down. Not that that is what Clark supporters are doing...."

That is professional-grade insinuation, dear, and to get the next charge out of the way, all members of my family will assure you, should you ask them, they have not been beaten for years....

Supporters of Gen. Clark, Sir, here and elsewhere, are working to support their candidate as seems best to them. Here in this forum, we face on occassion a great deal of misrepresentation, and occassional outright lies, from supporters of other candidates, including supporters of Gov. Dean. You will find, even, further down in this discussion, baseless claims of war-crimes leveled against Gen. Clark by some hot-head.

As a general rule, Sir, claims of one's moral superiority are best left to other's mouths, not issued from one's own....

[Chico Man]

57. Where do I claim moral superiority?

I'm just pointing out the differences between the candidates and the supporters (from my ~limited~ view of the playing field).

Other than that there is really not much on your post that I understand. I speak for myself, not supporters of Dean that outright lie. Sure, they exist. Who is denying they don't?

Why all of a sudden the defensiveness?

[The Magistrate]

58. Defensiveness, Sir?

Hardly: merely measured and even-handed expression.

There is no discernable difference between the conduct of the candidates and campaigns, and their supporters here and elsewhere, such as you continue to insinuate. Politics is, in any case, a blood-sport. Gov. Dean employs a redoubtable hatchet-man as his manager, which is to his credit as a man with a clear eye about what he is getting in to.

[Chico Man]

59. Maybe this guy is a Dean supporter?

Well at least he didn't say "Dean, anyone?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=315302

[Turley]

55. What are you talking about?

"I think he had the right approach. Committing ground troops to that conflict smells like quagmire. The situation called for a police action, and a quick, decisive solution. Ground troops are not the answer."
**************************

I don't recall any quick decisive police actions. I do recall being deployed with 20,000 other soldiers along with a bunch of tanks and artillery for about nine months. You must be thinking about a different war.

As for whether the article should be posted here…..I can only say that it is timely and relevant. If Dean is nominated the Pubs will bludgeon him with this. I don't see how he can urge unilateral action in Bosnia and then disparage the same thing in Iraq. It's not as if Milosevic was causing more human carnage than Saddam.

This letter is going to take away a lot of Dean's thunder, plain and simple. Tht's relevant and should be discussed. I suppose you can try and hide any negative press that comes your way but that'll be nothing more than the proverbial elephant in the parlour. Everyone knows it's there but doesn't dare to discuss it.

[Brotherjohn]

16. Here's one BIG difference. American dead in Bosnia - Zero...

American dead in Iraq - 500, and counting.

The two conflicts are so completely and utterly different that this "attack" is absurd.

[sandnsea]

19. Judgment

Howard had bad judgment on Bosnia, really bad. And, no matter how much people want to hang on to their "anti-war" candidate, Dean also said he supported disarming Saddam unilaterally in 30-60 days. I prefer a President who truly believes in multilateralism and has the patience and persistence to make it happen. That would be John Kerry.

[Brotherjohn]

24. Please give me a link to when he said he supported...

... "disarming Saddam unilaterally in 30-60 days."

[sandnsea]

30. Oh please

Honestly, if you don't know that by now, for god's sake don't vote.

[Brotherjohn]

36. Okay, I'll do it for you.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/print.html
That's the original Salon interview with Jake Tapper.

The pertinent section details how Dean was getting heat from the press and everyone else for saying, following Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N., that Bush HAS NOT made his case that Iraq has violated Resolution 1441.

Quoting from the interview (emphasis mine):

"It's Thursday, Feb. 6, the day after Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations of evidence of Iraq's noncompliance with Resolution 1441. Edwards calls it "a powerful case." Kerry says it's "compelling." Lieberman, of course, is already in his fatigues.

Dean isn't sold. It doesn't indicate that Iraq is an imminent threat, he says.

From Washington come the barbs -- The New Republic calls it proof he's "not serious." ABC News' "The Note" wonders if he's backed himself into a corner. Dean has opposed the pending war because he didn't think President Bush had made his case. If he doesn't support military action now, the thinking goes, then he's just contradicting himself. Or, at the very least, he's been put in an untenable and -- for the moment, at least inside war-ready Washington, unpopular -- position.

He gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

Let me translate, with FULL context (not leaving out such apparently "minor" parts as multilateral force and disagreeing that a case had been made to invade). Dean had just said, annoyed, for the eigth time that day, that Saddam must be disarmed with a multilateral force under the auspices of the U.N. He then says that if IN THE END, the U.N. does not enforce it's resolutions, then a unilateral action is an unavoidable choice.

IN THE END... IF they do not enforce their resolutions. But he is on record immediately before (and is taking great heat for it... the context of the whole portion of the interview) as saying that he does not think that Bush has made a case that Iraq has violated Res. 1441, nor does he think Iraq poses an imminent threat.

At that point, in the face of a critical, "war-ready" Washington, Dean was saying that, sure, if Iraq is shown to be in violation of U.N. resolutions, AND if the U.N. THEN did nothing, unilateral action was an option. But he was already clearly on record, in the same interview, as saying that he DID NOT think that it had been shown that Iraq WAS in violation of Resolution 1441 (much less whether or not the U.N. would then do anything about it).

He was simply making the distinction I, and many others, were making all along. We did not think that Iraq was in violation of U.N. resolutions. We thought, and evidence has borne this out, that Iraq did NOT have substantial WMDs (or even substantial programs), and the U.N. investigators were iun the process of showing this to be true. By saying "in the end", Dean was saying, as many of us were, that we wanted to WAIT until the U.N. inspectors were done and let them determine whether or not Iraq was in violation... IN THE END.

[sandnsea]

41. Yes, you posted it

Why did you pretend you didn't know what I was talking about when you clearly did?

What in the world do you think the IWR vote was all about??? The UN hadn't been enforcing its own resolution for 4 years. That's why we let them know we were serious about getting the inspectors back in Iraq and why Kerry voted yes on the resolution. He actually had to put his vote where his mouth was, unlike Howard. Of course, only Howard put a 30/60 day time limit on Saddm. Bush wasn't even that nutso. Just like I don't recall anybody suggesting unilateral military action in Bosnia either. Choose someone else, Howard isn't prepared to lead this country.

"If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

[Brotherjohn]

42. I didn't pretend. I looked it up after you wouldn't post it.

Call me woefully uninformed if you will, but every time I hear someone throw something like this at Dean, I look it up. I find the entire source and context, and usually find that it's unjustified criticism. And this is coming from an undecided, independent progressive, not a Dean supporter.

Such is the case this time as well.

You still ignore the fact that, in the immediately preceding sentence, Dean says that "Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations." That's pretty clear, and cannot be ignored at the expense of the following sentence (rather, the following sentence must be read in light of this statement).

Yes, he then says, "If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions..." a unilateral action is an unavoidable option. But not only do you ignore his previous, clear statement. You also ignore the fact that he says "in the end", if the U.N. does not enforce it's resolutions. You also ignore the fact that earlier, in the very same article, he is clearly on record as saying that he feels that the U.S. HAS NOT MADE THE CASE that Res. 1441 has been violated (he is, in fact, getting much heat for it, which is the thrust of that portion of the article). Therefore, he does NOT THINK that unilateral action is warranted! He says it MAY be, "in the end", if the U.S. can show that Iraq is in violation (and only THEN would a 30-60 day limit be imposed). But he says that this has not yet been shown.

Bush imposed a 48 hour time limit when it had not yet been shown that Iraq was in violation of Resolution 1441.

We can argue till the cows come home whether Iraq was indeed in violation. The IWR vote does not decide that, BTW. Arm-twisting and pro-war environment in the U.S. aside, that issue was for the U.N. to decide, and they were in the process of doing so. Unfortunately for Bush, they were in the process of determining that Iraq was not in violation other than perhaps a few minor, and arguable, technicalities.

I don't begrudge Kerry for voting for IWR. I believe he can defend his position, in light of the fact that one could be forgiven for trusting their president to act based on truth and with caution when initiating an unprecedented pre-emptive war. I also think that pressure from the U.S. helped the U.N. get the access it needed to determine that Iraq did not, in fact, have massive stockpiles of WMDs.

Neither, however, do I penalize Dean because he was not in a position to make that vote.

[Zhade]

53. There's no need to argue about Iraq being in violation.

The clear fact is that Hussein did not have any of the weapons he was purported to have. Ergo, no violation.

Thanks for pointing out the truth about Dean's comments. Like yourself, I am not a firm supporter of Dean (Kucinich is my candidate), but I can't stand seeing the same GOP talking points trotted out again and again. I'd prefer people here, and everywhere, tell the truth about whoever we're talking about.

[Crunchy Frog]

35. Here's the quote

"as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

I'm sorry I don't have the link, I'm sure someone can come up with it.

[Cheswick2.0]

27. take it to GD2004

This is not the place for your campaigning.

[robbedvoter]

33. Sorry, it's out of order. And this is news.

As for your signature line, here, help yourself:
http://chat.forclark.com/story/2004/1/3/124236/0081

[sandnsea]

18. Clinton got NATO support

He fought the Republian Congress and a number of Democrats in refusing to go unilaterally in Bosnia. And he succeeded. This was one of the greatest accomplishments of Clinton, showing that you can gain multilateral support and that you don't have to have massive military invasions to effect change. Dean was dead wrong on this and his desire to leap to unilateral action, especially military action, was once again to the right of Clinton. I don't think Congress even supported unilateral military action. They just wanted to arm Bosnia-Herzegovina and let them have a war in the middle of Europe. Looks like Howard supported the same thing and then some.

[fjc]

25. After googling the history of this for a time...

It seems fairly clear that many people where urging something had to be done in Bosnia long, long before Clinton finally did. This urging seems to have come from both sides of the political devide and was met apparently with equal inaction by both the Bush (1st one) and the Clinton administrations, even though Clinton had criticized Bush over this inaction in this area of the world. What do you want to wager that this history of inaction, by the UN, Nato, and the United States, was behind Dean's urging Clinton to take unilateral action?

[sandnsea]

31. Like the Republicans

Point being, Clinton refused and Clinton was right. Dean jumped to unilateral action, the Republican way, when it wasn't necessary. We have a much stronger NATO because of the way Clinton handled it. And again, I don't think Congress was even supporting unilateral military action. They only passed a unilateral lifting of the arms ban in order for Bosnia to fight the war themselves. NOT have the U.S. go in unilaterally with a full military contingent. Dean's letter is actually the first time I've seen it suggested. It is as bad as Bush coming out for war against Iraq the way he did. It's not the kind of President I want, I would hope most Democrats would agree. Well, they probably would if it hadn't been Dean who said it.

[Cheswick2.0]

28. that was then this is now

Nice try

[robbedvoter]

45. But Clark's voting record is fair game. I'm afraid it's relevant.

he wants to be CinC, we need to assess his judgement. He criticized W for doing exactly what he proposed. And history showed he was wrong.Only irrelevant if he stops seeking the office where he'd make this kind of decisions.

[noonwitch]

21. I don't see where this letter hurts Dean

I was glad that Clinton/NATO dealt with the situation in Bosnia. Europe was showing absolutely no leadership on the slaughter that was going on there, and something had to be done.
I like Dean, I like Clark, I think either one will make a good president and the other would make a good running mate. Both are tough when attacked, and both can outperform Bush/Cheney in a debate.

[BenFranklinUSA]

26. More Ammo For The Anti-Deans n/t

[robbedvoter]

32. Negotiations bad. War fast - by ourselves - the hell with the world!

Where did I hear this view of the world? So glad at least then it was Clinton and then Clark in charge of the successful NATO lead operation...
That hole in the resume was larger than we knew:

I need to plug that hole on the résumé, and I'm going to do that with my running mate," Dean said.
Dean's comments came on the same day that rival Wesley Clark said on ABC News' "This Week" that the former Vermont governor had asked him to be his running mate earlier this year. The two met in early September, shortly before Clark decided to seek the presidential nomination
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/

[sandnsea]

37. That would be the point

CNN is reporting it as a hypocrisy. That's not the point. Dean's unilateral military choice when nobody else was even going there is the point. This man cannot possibly be our candidate, good grief.

[cavebat2000]

40. More Ant-Dean Bushit

Everyone knows the truth about Dean and his stance on the Iraq war. All you people can do is try to break the democrats up into Dean and Anti-Dean. Great way to unite the party everyone. I saw his speech in Iowa, and I am convinced Dean is the man. I like Clark and all but he just doesn't seem to have the flame that Dean does. You want to be Bush you better at least be able to spark the fire.

[robbedvoter]

46. Thank you for your thoughtful response. It's replies like this that reveal

the who's and why's of other candidates supporters. Fascinating, as Mr Spock would say.

[Merlin]

49. This is a GREAT letter that reinforces Dean's foreign policy credentials.

I hope his enemies make a lot of this, because it will backfire in their faces.

[Zhade]

51. War criminal, anyone? Thanks, I'll pass.

NT!