What are Dean's views on Foreign Policy?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

What are Dean's views on Foreign Policy?

How does he think we should handle North Korea?

Now that we have troops in Iraq, what is his plan for dealing with the mess there?

What are his views on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

(edit: changed icon to ?)

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. No candidate dares oppose Sharon

One of them made a sort of suggestion once that maybe the US should at least think about not giving Israel unlimited money, and maybe not be quite so supportive of whatever the Likud party wants to do to Palestinian civilians, and that pretty much squashed any hopes he may have had.

Any politician of any party who might be tempted to question the official Gary Bauer-approveed Rapture Readiness policy only has to look at what happened to Cynthia McKinney.

[Eloriel]

2. How 'bout you read his words directly?

Official Website
http://www.deanforamerica.com


Look for "On the Issues" on the left of the page.

Eloriel

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. Good idea. Here it is. Please list differences from bush regime.

The basic framework for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians is a two state solution - a Jewish state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with an independent, demilitarized Palestinian state. The best approach to achieving lasting peace is a comprehensive one, providing for fully normalized relations, peace, and security as part of an overall negotiated settlement between Israel and the Arab states.

To get there, the Palestinian Authority will have to fight terrorism and violence on a consistent basis to create the conditions necessary for a viable peace process. The Israeli government will have to work to improve the living conditions of the Palestinian people and ultimately will have to remove a number of existing settlements. These issues and others will all be elements of a final agreement negotiated by the parties.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_mideast

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. Why don't we have a discussion about the issues?

Why don't we have a discussion about the issues? Why don't you summarize Dean's positions for us? Or just one of them? Include as many quotes as you like. I'm sure all of us here know how to visit Dean's website if we want, but instead, we are here at DU, hoping to discuss the issues.

[Tinoire]

5. Fine. Let's go. Let's Discuss this issue.

Let's discuss this issue. It's extremely important to me and after spending 3 years supporting justice for the Palestinians and peace for both Israelis and Palestinians, this is one issue I will not let go down the toilet.

Gloves off because we're getting ready for the Presidential elections and I don't want another "same ole, same ole for Israel and Palestine" President in the White House.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Please do.

As someone who is just starting to compare the stances of the candidates, I'm finding little difference between them. I also support Palestinian rights, but have not educated myself enough (yet) to be able elaborate my position.

I believe it to be a major issue in stopping the violence in Middle East. Others being US support for totalitarian states in the area and denial of human rights.

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. It is the one issue that more than any other, defines the US in the world

Regardless of which if any of the candidates you support, regardless of how you feel about the topic, that is the bottom line, or elephant in the living room, however you want to put it.

You may not agree with the world's view on this, but that is their view.

If there are indeed elections in the US, and votes are indeed counted, and a Liberia style cosmetic regime change is the result, then there will be no change in the world's opinion of the US, and no change in the price that American civilians will pay for that opinion.

There are 300 million people, more or less, in the US, and 6 billion, more or less, in the rest of the world.

More of those 3 billion have been impacted negatively by US foreign policy than positively.

The US hardline and unconditional support of atrocities against Palestinian civilians and funding of same is the flagship and guiding element of that policy, which to be fair, did not originate with the current bush regime.

It is not unlike a credit card bill. You can run it up, and run it up, but sooner or later, the minimum payment will be more than you have.

[Tinoire]

7. Dean on Israel and Palestine

The I/P conflict is the second important issue that attracted me to Kucinich (the first was the fight he and Wellstone led against genetically modified organisms and agribusinesses) and the first issue that concerned me about Dean. I was astounded to rad that Dean barely knows anything about the region or the conflict. A short time before leaving for Israel on an AIPAC-paid trip, he called Gary Hart, desparate for advice saying " Gary I don't know anything about it, what do I do?". I wasn't at all reassured when I read that and read that the person he met with in Israel was none other than Ariel Sharon. Since then, his statements on the conflict remind me too much of Sharon because of the placating comments, a little talk of removing a few settlements after the Palestinians cave in, the beauty and neccesity of the Fence (let's call a spade a spade and not use Sharon's vocabulary- that ain't no damn fence!!)

I see Dean's views on I/P as a disastrous continuation of the one-sided policy that has aggravated the situation. It's true that his views could evolve but this issue is too important for me to wait on evolution.

Some US Democratic voters are so concerned that they have begun a Petition to Howard Dean for Clarification of Stance on Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

To: Dr. Howard Dean

As members of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, The Green Party, Progressives, Independents, and other parties interested in your candidacy, we would like to express our deep reservations regarding your stated positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Based on speeches and interviews given last year and early this year, you spoke often of the Israeli victims of terror, yet you failed to acknowledge the three-fold number of Palestinian civilians who have been killed by the Israeli Defense Forces, or the Israeli military's incursion and illegal occupation of large portions of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. These incendiary actions by the Israeli military have fueled much of the animosity in the region, and they must be acknowledged in any fair assessment of the situation. It is also important to recognize that the expropriation of land and settlement activities have been repeatedly condemned by the U.N. Security Council, and the United Nation's General Assembly has determined that Israel's occupation of the territories have "no legal basis".

Additionally, in an interview with The Forward earlier this year, you stated that your views are closer to AIPAC's (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) than APN's (Americans for Peace Now). We view AIPAC's positions as more hawkish and one-sided, resembling the vision of the neocons within the Bush administration; and APNs as multilateral, reaching out to all sides of the conflict. We understand that statements can be taken out of context and misread. Can you clarify this statement?

Lastly, you said in an interview with the Jerusalem Post that you support the $8 billion in loans recently given to Israel and would in fact increase the amount of annual aid from $3 billion to $4 billion . Consider the following facts: <facts snipped>

Do you think this is a fair and equitable relationship? Dr. Dean, we respect and fully support your agenda to transform health care, promote economic development, protect the environment, end our dependence on fossil fuels, and cultivate our relationships with other nations around the globe (instead of inflame them as the Bush administration has done repeatedly). The views cited above do not appear to be consistent with other, more peace-promoting and inclusive statements you have made. It is imperative that the suicide attacks on Israel stop. It is also imperative that the Israelis end their military incursions and occupation. We believe—as does most of the world represented in the U.N.— that the U.S.'s position has been decidedly one-sided, and has in fact exacerbated the conflict by unilaterally opposing U.N. Security Council resolutions and providing interminable military aid to Israel.

In light of recent events, we believe that our policy towards the Middle East will lie at the heart of America's foreign policy in the next presidential term. The repercussions of another reckless policy in the region could be calamitous. As voters who wish to support your candidacy but have serious concerns about your vision for the Middle East, we respectfully request that a clarification be made on the issues cited above. You should know that the members of MoveOn are very passionate about this issue. Many of us learned of these (apparent) associations after the primary vote. You should also know that the views of AIPAC do not represent the views of many Jewish-Americans as can be seen from the signatures below. A growing number of Jewish-Americans, Arab-Americans, and concerned citizens are working side-by-side to end the injustices of the occupation and implement a fair two-state solution as soon as humanly possible.


Sincerely,

The Undersigned

----------------------------------------------
Ahmed Nassef, in his article "Howard Dean: Sharon's Man?", called Dean a 'hawk when it comes to Israel/Palestine and US policy toward Iran.'
---

In a major foreign policy speech earlier this year, Dean, while calling for an end to Palestinian violence, did not call for an end to Israeli violence, let alone an end to the illegal Israeli occupation.

And when asked whether his views are closer to the dovish Americans for Peace Now (APN) or the right wing, Sharon-supporting American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he stated unequivocally in an interview with the Jewish weekly The Forward, "My view is closer to AIPAC's view."

"At one time the Peace Now view was important, but now Israel is under enormous pressure. We have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations," he said.

<snip> (You should really read the rest of the article)

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000119.html

For me, this is the same ole, same ole we've been hearing for decades. Palestians, lay down your arms and they we will treat you fairly. It's a good thing the Palestinians aren't stupid. As we speak, their humanity is being erased, their orchards, land, and water stolen, their homes bull-dozed but they must lay down their arms? They must stop resisting this atrocity? This is AIPAC's view. Howard Dean is wrong! I can't support someone who dismisses Peace Now that summarily and places the blame squarely at the feet of the Palestinians.
Howard Deans campaign Finance Director is Steve Grossman who was former head of the AIPAC. In all fairness to Steve Grossman he seems to have been more moderate than most of the AIPAC heads but this is still not reassuring especially when you consider that Dean's first and only visit to the region was on a recent AIPAC-sponsored trip where he met with Ariel Sharon.
---------------------------

Howard Dean: Hawk in Dove’s Clothing?

<snip>

However, a series of statements by Dean regarding U.S. policy towards Israel and Palestine have raised serious concerns within the peace and human rights community regarding his liberal credentials.

In his major foreign policy address to date, a February 17 speech at Drake University in Iowa, Dean blasted the Bush administration’s foreign policy regarding Iraq and several other areas, but – when it came to Israel and Palestine – the former Vermont governor declared that, while the United States should become more engaged, he did not have any fundamental objections with President George W. Bush’s policies. Dean called for an end to Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians, but he did not call for a cessation of Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians. Similarly, there was no call for an end of the Israeli occupation, for Israeli compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, or a withdrawal from Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied territories or even a freeze on the construction of new settlements.

<snip>

In November, Dean paid his first-ever visit to Israel on an excursion that was organized and paid for by AIPAC. He was apparently unperturbed at his sponsors’ close ties to a government that engages in a pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations and blatantly violates a series of UN Security Council resolutions and other international legal principles. During his visit, Dean did not meet with any Palestinian leaders or any Israeli moderates.

Dean also appears to reject the widespread consensus among Israeli peace activists and Middle East scholars that Palestinian terrorism is a direct outgrowth of the 35-year Israeli military occupation. Instead, Dean seems to argue that terrorism itself is the core issue. He also rejects calls by APN and other liberal Zionist groups that Israel’s requested $12 billion loan guarantee be linked to an Israeli freeze on constructing additional illegal settlements on confiscated Palestinian land, arguing that such aid should instead be unconditional. Pushing for such a dramatic and unconditional increase in financial support for the incumbent government just before Israelis went to the polls in January was widely seen as a not-too-subtle endorsement of Sharon’s re-election.

<snip about how most Democratic Jews are more aligned with APN than AIPAC>

This has raised concerns within the peace and human rights camp that Dean’s apparent embrace of such a hawkish position comes not out of political expediency, but because he essentially supports the Sharon’s perspective that security comes from conquest and repression, not negotiation and compromise. In supporting Israel’s rightist government, so it is argued, Dean is taking the position that United Nations Security Council resolutions, human rights, and international legal principles like the Fourth Geneva Conventions can be ignored when they involved a strategic ally. And while he may not be as reckless as the other major Democratic contenders in supporting an invasion of Iraq, he clearly is not the progressive alternative to President Bush for whom so many are searching.

<snip>

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0226-04.htm

-------------------------

Also see
Howard Dean supports building the "fence" (Wall) in the West BanK
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=5282&mesg_id=5282

&
Jewish Democratic Council seeks to change MoveOn's website (Dean reaction)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=6047&mesg_id=6047

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Thanks for the research

I have followed most of the links that you gave and have gotten a pretty good education of the subject.

As a result, my support of Dean has moved from "probably" to "maybe".

Alas, none of the other major (apologies to Kucinich, Sharpton, Mosely-Braun supporters - any of which are better than the other candidates - but I just don't think they have a chance) candidates differ very much. Kerry does seem to have a more even handed approach, but his support of Bush's war in Iraq nullifies that.

[Tinoire]

17. Bandera-

Look at Kucinich a little closer. I just the week-end at a conference where one of the big issues was Israel/Palestine (cool thing for me that Rachel Corrie's parents were there and read several of her letters- most heart-wrenching).

There were some in-depth analyses of the problem during which we examined Kucinich's stance (Dean's and the others also).

Kucinich came out leaps and bounds ahead of the rest.

Kucinich's entire philosophy, the bills he's tirelessly introduced, and his statement (pasted below) when he refused to vote in favor of Congress's renewal of their blind allegiance to Israel are, for me, indicative that he is the only one in there who clearly faces the problem and is willing to tackle it. His long-time Jewish girl-friend, Yelena Boxer, lived in Israel and from what I've heard about her, is someone who supports peace and justice for the Palestinians.

I had a good 10 minute talk with Kucinich 10 days ago. Cornered him as he was grabbing something to drink and jumped head in with the I/P crisis. He did NOT dissapoint me. Our topic of discussion was, with names and dates, about the dangerous link-up between the Christian Zionists and the Likud. Names, dates, and places... If you are looking for someone with a good grasp of the problem, the compassion to work for peace and the courage to do what it takes to fix it, then Kucinich is the man.


Water is one of the main reasons for conflict in I/P. While other candidates are babbling about refusing to condemn globalization, privatization of water, babbling instead about fences, security, and everything but the real issues, Kucinich comes with something as insightful as this:

Water as a Human Right: Ten Principles

All water shall be considered to be forever in the public domain.
It shall be the duty of each nation to provide accessible, affordable drinking water to its peoples.
There shall be public ownership of drinking water systems, subject to municipal control.
Wealthy nations shall provide poor nations with the means to obtain water for survival.
Water shall be protected from commodification and exempted from all trade agreements.
Water privatization shall not be a condition of debt restructuring, loan renewal or loan forgiveness.
Governments shall use their powers to prevent private aggregation of water rights.
Water shall be conserved through sustainable agriculture and encouraging plant-based diets.
Water resources shall be protected from pollution.
Our children should be educated about the essential nature of water for maintaining life.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_water.htm
-----------------

The Jewish magazine Forward put it pretty well:

<snip>
Compounding the nervousness is his record on Israel, which leans toward even-handedness. Last year he abstained on a House resolution backing Israel's fight against terrorism and criticizing Yasser Arafat.
Some Ohioans note that his district has the largest concentration of Muslim and Arab Americans in the state.

Kucinich defends his abstention, saying the resolution on Israel wasn't evenhanded. "It's important to acknowledge the suffering of both the Israeli people and the Palestinians," he said. "If our brothers and sisters are in this fight to the death, shouldn't we declare solidarity for both?"

Boxer, who lived in Israel before immigrating to the United States at age 5, uses the same term to describe Kucinich. Ohioans interviewed for this article said she is known locally as his girlfriend.

"We have shared most of our holidays, including Passover," Boxer told the Forward. "He probably knows most of the Haggadah by heart.... He can recite the blessings over the wine and bread." And, she said, the two of them keep to a vegan diet, which she adopted because of kosher laws.

<snip>

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.02.28/news5.html

------

And here is that resolution he abstained on (I was SO proud of him at that time):


(Rep. Kucinich's statement on House Resolution 392, expressing "solidarity with Israel" as it battles "the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas" -- May 2002)

I declare my support for the State of Israel and for the security of the Israeli people. I also declare my support for a Palestinian state and for the security of the Palestinian people. So I will vote present today because I believe the security of Israel requires the security of the Palestinians.

I will vote present because I believe the United States can do better through honest brokering, and a principled commitment to peaceful coexistence.

Today, we are missing an opportunity to lead people of the Middle East toward a secure and stable future together. This resolution equates Israel's dilemma, which is the outcome of the Palestinian's struggle for self-determination, with the United States' campaign against the criminal organization, Al Queda.

Unfortunately, our own policy is undefined, amorphous, without borders, without limits, and without congressional oversight. For this Congress to place the historic Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the context of the current fashion of US global policy pitches Israelis and Palestinians alike into a black hole of policy without purpose, and conflict without resolution.

The same humanity that requires us to acknowledge with profound concerns the pain and suffering of the people of Israel requires a similar expression for the pain and suffering of the Palestinians. When our brothers and sisters are fighting to the death, instead of declaring solidarity with one against the other, should we not declare solidarity with both for peace, so that both may live in security and freedom?

If we seek to require the Palestinians, who do not have their own state, to adhere to a higher standard of conduct, should we not also ask Israel, with over a half century experience with statehood, to adhere to the basic standard of conduct, including meeting the requirements of international law?

There is a role for Congress and the Administration in helping to bring a lasting peace in the Middle East; however, this resolution does not create that role. After today we will still need to determine a course of action to bring about peace. This course will require multilateral diplomacy, which strengthens cooperation among all countries in the region. It will require focused, unwavering attention. It will require sufficient financial resources. And it will require that our nation have the political will to bring about a true, a fair, and a sustainable resolution of the conflict.

When this Congress enters into the conflict and takes sides between Israel and Palestine we do not help to achieve peace, but the opposite. Similarly, the Administration should consider that when it conducts a war against terrorism without limits the principle of war is quickened everywhere in the world, including the Middle East. When it talks incessantly about invading Iraq, the tempo of war is picked up everywhere.

If we truly want peace in the Middle East, this resolution is counter-productive. I will vote present because I do not believe that this resolution dignifies the role towards creating peace, which this Congress can and must fulfill.

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-020502-israeli.htm

On edit: Am adding, because of Party Line's post (#16) that yes, Kucinich didn't vote against this resolution because he is attached to Israel and I have no problems with that, but he did choose to abstain from voting by just voting "present" and explained why he couldn't vote either for or against it. I thought his statement was right on- very even-handed. Peace and thanks Party Line


Here is another from 2000 where he was one of the few to vote no.

House Expresses Solidarity with Israel,
Condemns Palestinians for Violence>

[Cheswick2.0]

27. dupe

dupe

[Cheswick2.0]

28. at this point it doesn't matter "who has a chance"

it matters that people like DK, Like Sharpton, M-Braun get supported so that the eventual candidate has to aknowledge the ideas that important to the voters. If Kucinich gets support over this particular issue then whether he is the nominee or not, the issue takes on import.

[indigo32]

10. Tinoire thanks for the information

I too will follow the links and get more educated. One of the things I like about Howard Dean is that he listens. I'll bet he'll respond to that request for clarification. Which I too have now signed.

[Tinoire]

20. I think he will also

Thanks for signing that by the way! I wasn't pushing it otherwise I would have posted it here earlier but I am glad that you did.

This really is one issue where I'm watching Dean closely. I already don't trust the others on it (except for Sharpton and Braun) because of their track record.

I am keeping my eyes in 3 places for information...

1. Muslims For Kucinich http://www.muhajabah.com/muslims4kucinich/

2. MuslimPAC (Progressive) http://www.mpac.org/home_article_display.aspx?ITEM=564

3. Dean 2004 Forum http://pub10.ezboard.com/fhowarddean2004frm7

Well, and of course Kucinich's forums and page but I've been following him for years and am not only comfortable but proud, as an American, of his position.

I would be lot more comfortable with Dean if he would clarify this for us all. What I am afraid of is that he can't because of his ties to AIPAC and the fact that he's already stated his views are along the same line as theirs. I really hope he'll prove me wrong for being such a cynic and I do admit that I am!

[indigo32]

11. specific link on Iraq

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_iraq_7pointplan

[MaverickX]

12. Dean's foreign policy can't be called unrealistic...

They pretty much so fit with the foreign policy views international relations students learn about in first semester world politics classes. The only problem with Dean is he has no foreign policy experience at unlike in '92 foreign policy will be a major issue '04.

[DuctapeFatwa]

13. No candidate who is too far from PNAC will get corporate money

so in a way, you are correct.

Unfortunately, the status quo is not in the best interest of the safety and security of the American people, although it is quite favorable to politicians and energy and defense executives with access to bunkers and various secure undisclosed locations.

[MaverickX]

19. that's not true...

Not all corporations support US unilateral military action. Most companies profit more with peace than war.

[DuctapeFatwa]

23. The 4 most profitable businesses: guns, drugs, humans, energy

All profit more from war.

This is not a new thing, twas ever thus.

The main difference now is that the US has become what Rome was once, before it fell.

The problem is that all the bombs and money in the world are useless against a very large number of individuals who have nothing left to lose.

It is a problem for me, and maybe for you. It is not a problem for energy and defense company executives and politicians and generals, all of whom have their hidey holes and armour plated cars and private security forces.

[MaverickX]

26. I disagree with you...

Oil companies have the least reason to support war.

[blm]

14. See his cribbed notes from Kerry's foreign policy speech.

And Gary Hart already told us in May that Dean HAS NO IDEA ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY. He called Hart and cried, "Gary, what do I do?"

[Rose Siding]

16. Smart people never ask each other for advice!

Here is some I/P commentary:

snip>
As Ahmed Nassef and Stephen Zunes have pointed out, Dean's positions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are very disappointing for those who seek a just and sustainable peace in the region. Unfortunately, they're also standard amongst the Democratic presidential hopefuls. All nine candidates essentially tow the same line: they support a vague "two-state solution," the removal of settlements (without details as to how many or when), and the cessation of terrorism, and they concede that further details will have to be worked out by the relevant parties. JTA, a Jewish news service, recently had a piece focusing on a hawkish Democratic fundraiser named Peter Buttenwieser, who notes that the "litmus test for me is a candidate has to be good on Israel. ... But all of these candidates are good on Israel." This pattern is hardly new. Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair wrote that Paul Wellstone, "in common with ninety-eight other senators, craven on Israel." Even Kucinich chose not to join nearly two dozen fellow representatives in voting against a strongly worded and one-sided resolution that "supported Israel's incursions into Palestinian territories, and apparently endorsed as justifiable the brutality and bloodshed the Israeli Army inflicted on the unarmed civilians there," according to prominent English-language daily Arab News.

http://deandefense.org/archives/000596.html

Why I'm Supporting Howard Dean


Recently, Muslim Wake Up posted an indictment of Howard Dean as "Sharon's Man" based on initial clues on his position towards the Middle East conflict.

It is undeniable that Dean has said that his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are "in line with AIPAC's". And it is true that Dean considers resolution of the conflict to start with the cessation of terrorism, which in my view is mistaken because it puts cart before horse. Others have noted with alarm that Dean has named Steven Grossman (former head of AIPAC) as his chief fundraiser.

However, this does not mean that Dean is "Sharon's man." In fact the naming of Grossman is a clear indicator of Dean's inherent balance and affinity for moderation. In 1993, Grossman persuaded AIPAC to issue a unanimous declaration of support for the Oslo accords. Grossman supported Bill Clinton in 1991 after Tsongas dropped out, and left AIPAC in 1997 as a more bipartisan and balanced organization than ever before (or since).

Look, if resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle with a Palestinian bias was my single issue, then I may as well vote for Bush again. Bush's ties to Saudi Arabia, and his need for regional stability in Iraq and the Arab world, make him far more Abu Mazen's man than Sharon's. Note that the loan-guarantees pressure on Israel due to the Apartheid Wall. Did we ever see that kind of tough attitude during the Clinton Administration? In fact, Clinton explicitly encouraged the blatantly false perception that Barak was "generous" at Camp David - even though the offer to the Palestinians was the equivalent of prison-state cantons.

more..................

http://www.altmuslim.com/opinion_comments.php?id=1060_0_25_0_C

[DuctapeFatwa]

18. All the majors are Sharon's men - that's why they're majors

American politics is about money, and there is no money to be made via a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Not the kind of money that has been and continues to be made by keeping the region in a state of instability and various levels of war.

[blm]

29. It was more than asking for advice.

If that was the case then Hart wouldn't have mentioned it. He was warning us that of the candidates there are definitely two who don't have what it takes for foreign policy, Dean and Lieberman.

Ignore Gary Hart's warning...go ahead...Bush and Cheney did, too. That worked out well, didn't it?

[Rose Siding]

30. As I recall, Hart made that statement

before he decided not to run, so the remark may have been self serving.

Dean spoke with Hart before Dean took it upon himself to visit the region to learn more about the situation. It is logical that he would seek advice and council from someone whose opinion he respects. This only recommends him for the presidency, imo.

I trust that Hart is skilled enough at communicating that any such "warning" would be more clearly articulated, so I reject your interpretation of what he said.

[blm]

35. He made it AFTER he decided not to run...

Hart wasn't ready to endorse anyone at the time, but, he did warn that those two were unfit to serve.

The article was in the May 7 Denver Post, and was scrubbed the last time I tried to retrieve it. The ABC Note does refer to the article. Interesting that it was scrubbed. Thought they only scrubbed for Karl and Bush.

[Rose Siding]

36. Hart bowed out Tues, May 6

Were the statements simultaneous? If they were made at the very same time, you'd think both would be in the same article. If they were, it sounds like he was bitter about his decision.

BTW, the allusion to Bush/Rove involvement is no more convincing than the S&B smears on Kerry.

[blm]

37. May 7 was the article...

it was in the ABC Note and referred to the Denver Post interview. The Denver article is scrubbed. Who would do that?

[Kellanved]

15. What about this old/new Europe BS?

The issue has brought me here in the first place.

[Tinoire]

21. Please expound. I'm not sure what you're talking about

but would be interested in learning more.

I don't like the sound of this... old/new Europe?

[Kellanved]

25. I'll try

Certain members of the current administration have blamed certain European nations for not waging war. Although participating in this war would have been a major breach of international law and the constitution of at least one of the opposing nations, an "Axis of weasels" has been invented, AKA "old Europe".
I have heard Democratic canditates defending the war and, to a lesser extent, defending the created chasm in Europe - preparing the ground for a new rift between the USA and the EU.

My question is: is Dean an uniter or a divider in foreign policy. Cliton managed to be an uniter, the US was always coming first for him however.



On a side note: While we are willing to take responsibility, we are not willing to wage war. Asking us to wage war is a display of historical ignorance.

[Rose Siding]

31. That phrase was coined by Donald Rumsfeld

Dean has been very critical that sort of divisionist rhetoric-

snip>
It was the second in a series of nine town hall forums -- one for each Democratic candidate -- hosted by Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin. While the bulk of the questions dealt with domestic issues, particularly the economy, it was Dean's fiery foreign policy criticisms that drew the only standing ovation.

"This president has used humiliation as a weapon, not only against our enemies but against our friends," Dean said, adding the United Nations should be brought in to help administer Iraq.

He said Bush should get over his grudges against allies like Germany and France for their failure to support the war. "This president has exercised foreign policy by petulance," he said.

SURROUNDED BY 'IDEOLOGUES'

Bush's biggest foreign policy problem was that "he surrounded himself with ideologues" like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Richard Cheney and former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, he said.

Dean said his foreign policy team would operate on the belief that "the United States has a moral obligation to be a world leader and not simply the most fearful power on the planet Earth."

http://news.excite.com/politics/article/id/222972%7Cpolitics%7C05-18-2003::17:46%7Creuters.html

[Tinoire]

32. Thanks! Can't speak for Dean but here is Kucinich

I see Party Line answered that. I don't know much about the various candidate's stand on this issue though I agree it's certainly important.

I won't speak for Dean but I do know that Kucinich has introduced a lot of Legislation on GMOs and their labelling and GMOs are the main weapon the US is using to wage an economic/trade war on Europe.


Not that you asked about DK ;) but here is his stance on International Cooperations:
The United States must affirm principles of sustainability as well as recognize and promote international cooperation and agreements. We must affirm and ratify treaties beginning with:

The Kyoto Treaty on Global Climate Change.
The Biodiversity Treaty.
The Forest Protection Treaty.
The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
The Landmine Ban Treaty.
The Biological Weapons Convention.
The Chemical Weapons Convention.
The International Criminal Court.

Our country and all nations must review and modify all treaties which reject national sovereignty in the cause of a global corporate ethic which does not respect human rights, workers rights and environmental quality standards. This means reviewing the practices and the practical impact of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_internatcoop.htm

More on other Issues here: http://www.kucinich.us/issues.htm

or here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=10913

Peace

[Kellanved]

38. Thanks

For the information Tinoire and Party Line

Your post about Kucinich sounds really great - good to hear that the Democratic party has men like him.

And Dean makes sense too me as well. Do me a favour and remove Bush from office ;-)

[Tinoire]

40. We are both trying!

That idiot is a danger and a major embarrassment to us all! Reallym I apologize to you for our President!

:)

Peace

[Mabus]

22. Link to announced presidential candidates' quotes on issues

Try http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm for quotes from each of the announced presidential candidates on specific issues from abortion to welfare.

[Rose Siding]

24. And Dean at more length on foreign policy

"Defending American Values - Protecting America's Interests"
Foreign Policy Address
Drake University
February 17, 2003

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5606&news_iv_ctrl=1421

Welcome to DU, Mabus :hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Does anyone know Dean's stance on the ICC?

The International Criminal Court? As a member of, and contributor to Amnesty International, this is a particular sore point for me.

[Rose Siding]

34. There's this

snip>
Not only has the focus of this Administration's foreign policy been wrong. So is the manner in which it has been conducted.

Instead of the humility we were promised, this administration has acted with unparalleled arrogance and disregard for the concerns of others.

It has rejected a long list of multilaterally negotiated agreements: the comprehensive test ban, the Kyoto treaty, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Biological Warfare Convention Protocol, the International Criminal Court, the Landmine convention; the list goes on and on. These treaties are not without flaws, but surely some could be ratified and others renegotiated. The answer is to work to rewrite them, and not to walk away from them.

The bedrock of our strength and security is provided by our economy, our military and our values. We cannot deny, however, that our strength derives in large measure as well from the extent to which others emulate and respect us abroad--and not by the extent to which they fear and loathe us.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6462&news_iv_ctrl=1401

Dean is frequently citical of the Bush admin eschewing various treaties across the board.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Thank you!

It's a bit vague, but certainly hopeful.

[Tinoire]

42. Just saw that Dean supports re-writing Rome and poss not signing

Position on the Court:

Believes the U.S. should stay engaged with the Court and "work to rewrite" the Rome Statute.

Doesn't know if he would support U.S. becoming a signatory.

Believes concerns about American Servicemembers are justified.

http://www.amicc.org/usinfo/administration_advocacy.html

"The Criminal Court is a very complicated legal matter and I don't — can't tell you what I think about it except that I think the concerns about what might happen to American troops are justified. When the Belgians indicted Sharon for war crimes that was a signal that the Criminal Court might be used as a weapon against the United States or other countries that were unpopular. So we have to look into that very carefully.

I did not realize this until now when I checked the AMICC web-site. This just clarifies the quote you gave...

[Tinoire]

41. Kucinich re the ICC - Full support

because I'm learning about Dean as we go here and appreciate that very much!

Here is Kucinich on the ICC:

Tuesday, April 22, 2003 [phone] (w)
In Speech To Global Parliamentarians Kucinich
Reaffirms Support For International Criminal Court

At Speech At UN Kucinich States ICC Key To International Security
In a speech at a forum at the Untied Nation’s, hosted by the Parliamentarians For Global Action (PGA), today, Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) reaffirmed his support for the International Criminal Court (ICC) and international organizations such as the United Nations.

At today’s forum, Kucinich, Ranking Member of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, addressed representatives of 16 nations.

“At this critical moment in world history it is important for the United States to reaffirm our commitment to working with the international community and the United Nations in resolving international conflicts,” Kucinich stated today.

“The International Criminal Court is important in this process,” continued Kucinich. “With the United States possible seeking war crimes against members of the former Iraqi government, now more than ever, the United States must demonstrate our commitment to this international organization. The ICC will make our nation safer through ensuring international cooperation on matters of law and order.”

PGA, the host of today’s forum, has 1350 Members of Parliament from 105 elected national legislatures. Kucinich is a member of PGA’s Executive Committee.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh10_kucinich/030422pgaun.html

----

Position on the Court: Active Supporter. Says would call for ratification of Rome Statute.

Voting record: Positive. Voted against ASPA and anti-ICC Paul amendment.

ICC Statements:

"Our security will be enhanced by working with other nations and the U.N. instead of acting like an Empire, arrogantly undermining international agreements such as … the International Criminal Court…."
"The International Criminal Court is important in this process. With the United States possible seeking war crimes against members of the former Iraqi government, now more than ever, the United States must demonstrate our commitment to this international organization. The ICC will make our nation safer through ensuring international cooperation on matters of law and order."
"I want to see the United State participate in … the International Criminal Court."

http://www.amicc.org/usinfo/administration_advocacy.html