Dean critics: How would you get us out of Iraq?

[Classical_Liberal]

without turning it over to Al Qaeda? I agree it was stupid to go in there and I protested doing so, but to leave now would surely mean Al Qaeda would takeover, along with more World Trade Center attacks which is why I don't just want to bring the troops home now, though I do want more Nato and UN involvement, and will kiss their old european butts in the most contrite fashion to get this done. If you believe we should bring them home now, you must have a solution to this dilema and I want to know what it is.

[madfloridian]

1. UN.

n/t

[Classical_Liberal]

2. Dean advocates this

So why are you a critic of Dean?

[dpbrown]

7. The difference is a matter of timing among other things

Although it seems you're looking for a pat answer, as I understand it, Dean is calling for a stabilizing force made up of a combination of international and US forces in Iraq, same as Bush.

The rationale seems to be, "Iraq. We broke it. We bought it."

The difference between Bush and Dean on Iraq, to the extent that there is one, revolves around the degree of control each is willing to accord the UN and/or NATO in return for their help cleaning up the Bush mess, Bush - none, Dean - some, maybe.

At least one candidate is calling, on the other hand, for a complete withdrawal from Iraq, turning both the peacekeeping and the contracting process over to the UN, and from there to the Iraqis, while holding the US responsible for financially supporting the reconstruction of a nation they invaded without justification, and removing corrupt multinationals like Haliburton from their position of feasting on the corpse of Iraq like the vultures that they are.

This candidate's position differs dramatically from that of Dr. Dean.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Classical_Liberal]

10. I doubt the UN would go along with it, so that isn't practical

The UN doesn't have a standing army to commit. so they can't participate at any other level but control. The best they would do is making the US and Brits put on UN arm bands ideally. That isn't the US hegemon's doing, but it is the UN's structure at present. Removing the corrupt multinationals is par for the coarse with all the dems but Lieberman.

[Darranar]

13. I know...

It is sad but true. Iraq is a quagmire, and I don't know the best path.

[dpbrown]

20. I don't think you've summarized correctly

I haven't heard any other candidate advocate for removing the power to contract from the United States. The assumption that each candidate, other than Lieberman, would do so rests on tenuous ground.

The UN would be able to put together a peace-keeping force, that would replace the US occupying force, if they were given a say in how Iraq moved to its own governance.

Restoring contracting power to the Iraqis is key to providing them a ramp-up to self-governance. Right now Halliburton and the other corrupt US multi-nationals are taking unfair advantage of the fallen nation under the cover of US armed forces. This is little different from mobsters looting a store while their henchmen stand guard with machine guns.

The US, as the invader, needs to provide for the economic assistance necessary to rebuild Iraq, but get its soldiers out. Soldiers under UN command are different.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Classical_Liberal]

22. Edward's definately has and he is second only to Lieberman

in his conservatism. The UN's multionals have always been US and British forces under this large of a scale. That is just reality. We will just be putting UN emblems on soldiers already there.

[dpbrown]

23. The obvious difference is command

Bush won't give up any control. I don't understand whether you're saying that Edwards has a position on giving up military control of Iraq or not. And there is no way that the United Nations would be putting US National Guard part-time soldiers on permanent rotation in Iraq or lying to them about how long they're going to be there, like Rumsfeld is doing to them now. No, there are serious differences between the UN being in control of peace-keeping in Iraq and the US running it like a mob hit, letting Halliburton loot it and make Cheney even richer.

[Classical_Liberal]

25. Edwards has said he would put the stops on the Bechtal

Haliburton type contracts. Dean has said he would let the UN have control so what's your beef?

[dpbrown]

29. Please see #7

Since you're bent on using provocation, the response is still the same. Dr. Dean is looking first to bolster US forces in Iraq, in order to guarantee "stability" and then sometime down the road handing power over.

The "beef" is the timing, and Dr. Dean's timing has no "beef."

Getting out of Iraq should be done now. Turning power over should be done now. Getting rid of the illegal contracts Halliburton has should be done now.

[Classical_Liberal]

31. The small problem is that Bush is President now

. Dean would bolster forces under the UN, with UN uniforms. The UN wouldn't replace US troops. They would only command them ideally even under the UN plan.

[dpbrown]

32. You mooted your own original question

But I don't suppose it matters if you're only trying to stir up provocation.

The answer then is, "Fire this President and get a new one."

Does that require a new thread?

[Classical_Liberal]

34. I am just asking what you would do differently from

Dean and am only being answered by Ductape Fatwa with anything specifically different.

[nolabels]

60. Classified as the installed Corporate squatter from 2000 vote fraud

http://www.media-criticism.com/Baltimore_Sun_Iraq_2000.html
Remember the 2000 Coup d’Etat!
Progressives should not soon forget what dark forces installed the lackluster George W. Bush to the position he’s achieved.

What follows are some special memories of the 2000 presidential election:
• May, 2000. Thousands of black voters evicted from the Florida voter rolls supposedly because they are ex-felons. Nearly all of these never were criminals, however, but nearly all of them are black. 4,000 of them never bother to get back on the rolls. The list of people to evict was prepared by a firm hand-picked by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Counterpunch, November 16-30, 2000.)
• 11/7/00: Election day. Palm Beach, Florida. Dozens, maybe hundreds, of angry voters attempt to tell the Election Board that the Butterfly ballot being used was too confusing.

That night, Gore handily wins the national popular vote, but the result in Florida—key to the election with its critical electoral votes—remains uncertain.

In Palm Beach, city with many elderly Jews, 16,000 ballot votes are made with both Patrick Buchanan and Al Gore specified. Thousands of angry voters claim they intended to vote for Gore but the ballot confused them. On TV Buchanan later admits the 3,000 votes he alone received in that county were certainly a mistake. This is significant because that number of votes handily exceeds Bush’s alleged final margin in all of Florida.
• Soon afterwards the Florida counties begin their recounts while Secretary of State Harris—who served as co-chair of Bush’s Florida campaign but failed to recuse herself in the aftermath of the election, as would have been appropriate—tries to stop them. In critical, Gore-leaning Dade-Miami County, a disturbance is caused by a group of Republicans which causes the recount there to be discontinued. Jonathan Schell in The Nation (December 18, 2000) describes the event:
(snip)

[Melinda]

40. dpbrown - Could you help me out here, please?

This is what Dr Dean said on 8/14:

"For several months, I have called on the Administration to seek the assistance and cooperation of the United Nations and the international community.

"Despite the Administration's rosy assessment of the situation, the violence is 'as bad as everyone thinks' and the situation is growing increasingly dire. Every day, we learn that more American soldiers have been attacked, wounded and killed. 129 soldiers have lost their lives since President Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln to declare hostilities at an end. Our unilateral occupation of Iraq is costing $1 billion a week, yet, at a time of historic budget deficits, the Administration is still not leveling with the American people about the long-term costs of occupying and rebuilding Iraq. And, our ongoing refusal to work with the rest of the world continues to damage our credibility and standing as a world leader, while focusing the wrath of those who peddle hatred and terror exclusively on us.

"I call on the President to put the best interests of the United States ahead of a narrow unilateralist ideology and seek the full partnership and engagement of the UN and the world community in the critical work of rebuilding post-war Iraq."

And on 8/20 Dr Dean said:

BURLINGTON--Governor Howard Dean issued this statement on Iraq:

"Since last April, I have been calling on President Bush to internationalize the reconstruction effort in Iraq. I repeat that call today.

"Expert after expert has returned from Iraq stating that the window of opportunity is closing faster than anyone expected and that our chance to successfully stabilize and rebuild the country is quickly passing. Despite this, the Bush Administration refuses to seek a UN mandate so that our historic allies and friends can join us in this effort and speed up the reconstruction process.

"I call on the Bush Administration to take the following steps to encourage our proven allies and friends, including France, Germany, India, and Turkey to join us in Iraq and to accelerate the reconstruction process. We must:

* Work with the UN to build the largest coalition possible to help us succeed in Iraq;
* Make clear our intention to share decision-making on security and reconstruction issues in Iraq with those countries and international institutions that join the international coalition;
* Prioritize restoring law and order and the resumption of electricity, water, and sanitation services -- they are fundamental to success in all other areas;
* Focus on developing Iraqi capacity to undertake key functions as soon as possible;
* Decentralize the operations of the Coalition Authority and make money more forthcoming and flexible;
* Employ the sizable number of available Iraqis with short term public works projects and get state-run enterprises up and running, even if they must be downsized and privatized later;
* Push for UN oversight of the successor to the Oil for Food program;
* Award reconstruction contracts to the best US or foreign bidder in a transparent and open process.

SO my question to you is - Could you please provide links and/or other documentation supporting your statement that "Dr. Dean is looking first to bolster US forces in Iraq, in order to guarantee "stability" and then sometime down the road handing power over."? This is something new and I really, really need see it for myself.

Thanks in advance.

[dpbrown]

67. The information is in your own post

The difference between the candidates on this issue is that some want to bring the UN in on the action. Then sometime later they want to give up some control over Iraq.

Another candidate is calling for the US to give up control over the Iraq rebuilding process right now, give up the contracting process right now, and co-operate and provide economic assistance for the duration of the rebuilding, based on the rationale that the US caused the destruction and destabilization with its unjustified invasion of Iraq.

All that stuff you bolded just boils down to co-operate with the UN, with no specifics. I'd be willing to bet the candidate hasn't offered any specifics or a time-table for giving up control of Iraq to an international group. Additionally, the candidate said in an interview that he thought US forces were too small in Iraq. Perhaps the candidate has changed his mind on this, I don't know. The pieces you quoted and bolded don't contradict those sentiments, however.

[Classical_Liberal]

69. Whatever you say

This looks pretty specific.

* Make clear our intention to share decision-making on security and reconstruction issues in Iraq with those countries and international institutions that join the international coalition;

[dpbrown]

72. To make an intention clear isn't specific

It says nothing about the timeframe for the execution of the mandate decided upon. It's warm fuzzy words about "deciding" to do something without any timeframe in which it must be a) decided, and b) finished.

There is a clear distinction between candidates on this point.

[Classical_Liberal]

74. Yes it is

You are the one creating chicken and egg arguments.

[dpbrown]

78. I am Rubber, you are glue

Bounce off me and stick to you.

Is this really the level of discourse you'd like us to descend to?

We should decide to work with the UN is not specific.

We should get out of Iraq, let the UN take over, fund the reconstruction, and let go of all illegally gotten contracts is specific.

At this point, I've clearly delineated where my candidate stands on the issues, and I guess you've tried to do the same. I'm unconvinced that your candidate has a better plan than mine.

To the extent that there is any egg left, it's, um, on you.

Have a nice day.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[tameszu]

75. Classical liberal--that's actually not quite true

The U.S. has very few soldiers under UN command--because, as a rule, they refuse to put their soldiers under foreign command, and UN missions generally rotate the senior commanders between the countries.

You would be surprised as to who commits heaviest to UN missions--Britain, yes, but also Australia, Canada, India, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, various African countries, Bangladesh, Ghania, and so on. Now the troops of 3rd world countries are often very poorly trained and equipped, so they often don't really "count," but as far bodies go, they are there. Usually, it's the OECD countries that pull much of the weight, although there are a number of logistical and transportation components with which the whole world generally always needs U.S. support for really seriously missions.

The U.S. is a big part of NATO missions, because they allow the U.S. to call most of the shots, and guarantee that U.S. troops stay under separate command.

[gully]

30. It's not a given that the UN is interested in doing so....

They as much as said that to Powell last week. Mr. Annan (sp) said "The UN never authorized this war" in response to questions about their involvement in Iraq.

So the claim that we can 'bring the troops home' is most questionable.

[dpbrown]

36. It's all about control

Bush won't relinquish control, and that (along with the bombing and the equating of the UN with being just an arm of the US in the Arab world) is what's keeping the UN from wanting to participate further.

Think about it. Bush defied the UN by invading Iraq with no justification, and now wants the UN and whatever other country he can get to help him clean up the mess.

No nation, nor the UN, would in their right mind agree to such a farce - adding to the US occupation force while getting no say in the development of a rebuilding program for Iraq or a timetable for turning Iraq over to the Iraqis.

All the "incremental changes" candidates take their cue from the "inevitability" of the Bush occupation of Iraq, then asking for "help" without giving up "control."

That's the only questionable thing about bringing the troops home. National Guard members with families at home would never be part of a UN peacekeeping mission. It's ludicrous and outrageous that Rumsfeld is allowed to get away with keeping them over there on back-to-back missions, and no wonder that soldiers are dying from "non-combat" bullet wounds.

We can bring the troops home by giving up control. But neither Bush, nor most of the other candidates are willing to confront the "we're sorry, we were wrong" bugaboo to facilitate this needed shift.

And the fact that US forces would be part of a multinational peacekeeping force under international control is a red herring from the "bringing them home" angle, because they would be a) regular soldiers, and b) under non-US command.

The US should pay for the cleanup and reconstruction of the country they illegally and unjustifiably invaded, naturally. The US should just have no say in how Iraq is rebuilt or cleaned up.

We didn't give Germany a big say in how to clean-up Poland, did we?

We didn't give Japan a big say in how to rebuild Hawaii, did we?

The US, an aggressor nation, needs to get off its high horse and get out of Iraq, and turn over the administration of Iraq to someone other than the corporate criminals now gorging themselves on the corpse of Iraq.

The "we're there now" argument fails, because the "why" we went there is based completely on false arguments, Bush lies, and military adventurism.

If there are war crimes trials, then Bush should be the first one in the dock.

[Classical_Liberal]

37. You're wrong

Dean stated he would put the troops under UN control, and stated unilateral invasion was a mistake, so he would be contrite to the UN.

Here is Dean's Statement

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8372&JServSessionIdr011=y6mptx8fpr.app1a&news_iv_ctrl=1421


"I call on the Bush Administration to take the following steps to encourage our proven allies and friends, including France, Germany, India, and Turkey to join us in Iraq and to accelerate the reconstruction process. We must:

Work with the UN to build the largest coalition possible to help us succeed in Iraq;

Make clear our intention to share decision-making on security and reconstruction issues in Iraq with those countries and international institutions that join the international coalition;

Prioritize restoring law and order and the resumption of electricity, water, and sanitation services -- they are fundamental to success in all other areas;

Focus on developing Iraqi capacity to undertake key functions as soon as possible;

Decentralize the operations of the Coalition Authority and make money more forthcoming and flexible;

Employ the sizable number of available Iraqis with short term public works projects and get state-run enterprises up and running, even if they must be downsized and privatized later;

Push for UN oversight of the successor to the Oil for Food program;
Award reconstruction contracts to the best US or foreign bidder in a transparent and open process.

[dpbrown]

68. I'm not wrong, Dean's light on specifics and a timetable

That kind of stuff doesn't matter to you true believers, I know, and good on you for your enthusiastic support of your candidate.

But another candidate has been very specific that the US needs to give over control and contracting authority of Iraq now and economically support the reconstruction of Iraq based on the rationale that the US, as the aggressor, is liable for the rebuilding until the Iraqis get back on their feet.

As long as you think your candidate is best on this, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't think "as soon as possible" cuts it, however.

[gully]

64. The UN would need to be 'willing'...first and foremost

To say that we can bring anybody home is premature.

[dpbrown]

70. Chicken and Egg argument

The UN was willing to continue the inspections, which according to Blix would have certified one way or the other whether Iraq was in compliance within a matter of months, but the Anglo-Saxon oil confiscation forces tromped on in anyway.

Now Bush is begging the international community to help him clean up the mess he's made, and the candidates are mostly offering flavors of the same thing.

To my mind, the one candidate who is calling for an immediate turn-over of Iraq to international authority, keeping the US on the hook for the economic cost of its military aggression, and stripping all ill-gotten contracts from corrupt US multi-nationals, is the candidate who has the better plan.

To argue that the UN wouldn't be willing to assume authority upon US withdrawal assumes the conclusion. The UN would be willing, if it didn't have to fight with the US for authority. As long as the US is intent on maintaining authority, the international community has no reason to be "willing" to be involved. In fact, they'd be crazy to help Bush, seeing as he's only looking for more military assistance to help him rape Iraq.

The UN shouldn't be willing to help rape Iraq. They should be willing to help kick the US out of Iraq. As far as I know, only one candidate is calling for the US to be kicked out of Iraq and for the UN to take over. I think that's a better idea, and I'm sticking with that candidate.

[Classical_Liberal]

73. The UN has no forces to kick the US out with but the US

.

[madfloridian]

11. If this is directed to me, I am NOT a critic of Dean.

I think UN, he thinks UN. We support Dean.

[JI7]

3. yup

.

[Classical_Liberal]

4. Dean advocates more UN and Nato involvement so what's yur beef?

?

[Kbowe]

71. Quick, fast, and in a hurry.

So what if al-Qaeda takes it over...what are they going to do with 60 million Iraqis? If we can't handle them, they should be able to kick al-Qaeda's ass pretty quick.

[Caution]

5. Not a Dean critic but

The assumption that "al-qaeda" woudl surely take over is a little absurd. The Iraqis may revert to e theocracy along the lines of Iran but I seriously doubt they would become a state governed by al-qaeda.

[Classical_Liberal]

6. The Sunni triangle would

Islamic Jihad is the option of choice for the Shiite areas. Iraq is actuallyt more like Afghanistan with several ethnic and religious groups and that would make it perfect for Al Qaeda, since no one group can govern the country. Iraq is more ripe for ethnic civil war than Iran which is culturally monolithic.

[THUNDER HANDS]

8. I don't have a solution

I'm not a foreign affairs expert and I'm pretty sure nobody else on this board is either.

And I think the reality is that NOBODY knows what is the "right" way to do this. We've changed U.S. foreign policy 180-degrees in just two years, so we're basically learning on the fly.

Anything we do now will be a failure. There needs to be new U.S. leadership before any progress is made in Iraq.

[Upfront]

21. Magic Rat

has hit the nail on the head. The US needs a new president before we have any hope the countrys Bush insulted will help.

[DuctapeFatwa]

9. I believe the C-130 can hold quite a few passengers, I'd use those

The least reprehensible thing the US could do at this point is get every soldier, every US corporation rep, every weapon they brought in out. Leave any equipment or supplies that could be useful, unfreeze all the charities who have been declared terrorists for feeding Palestinian orphans, write a blank check and let OxFam, Save the Children, Red Crescent, World Food and every NGO in the world get in there and get some water, food and medicine to people, let THEM make some arrangements with Egypt, Iran, anybody with some crews and trucks to get the lights back on, let the Arab League throw together some kind of security force, however they want to work it out.

But no US, either in camo or disguised in blue helmets.

Then, the US should resign its posistion on the UN security council, and let the UN move its HQ to Finland or somewhere, where they can then decide whether to vote the US out entirely.

Once the troops are back home to assume their new duties abusing their families and holding up "will work 4 food signs" on street corners in between visits to the VA to be told that their radiation sickness is psychosomatic, the entire PNAC crew and most of Congress, should get on one of the returned C-130s and fly it to the Hague and turn themselves in as war criminals, at which point the other countries in the Americas can decide what they want to do with the U.S.

[Classical_Liberal]

14. Your not addressing the problem of Al Qaeda at all

.

[DuctapeFatwa]

16. Since Al Qaeda has "mutated" into anyone who opposes the bush regime

Once the bush regime dissolves, "Al Qaeda" will revert to what it was before it was created by the US in the 80's: a disparate group of young men who think bringing back the Caliphate is the best way to get rid of US installed puppet regimes in various countries.

Once the US is disarmed and declawed, the threat to grass roots democracy in the Middle East will be removed, and people who want a Caliphate can paint signs and print t-shirts and make campaign speeches like all the other parties will be doing.

[Classical_Liberal]

17. I don't believe this

since Al Qaeda existed before we were in Iraq. The people who want a caliphate don't want elections, and won't run for them. I am opposed to Bush and I don't want a caliphate and I am not part of Al Qaeda. Caliphates never had elections. The fact that the cia organized them(stupid!) doesn't mean they disappear when the cia isn't around. They haven't disappeared and the cia hasn't funded them since the Solviet's left.

[DuctapeFatwa]

18. Read my post. The US created Al Qaeda in the 1980's

Recruiting was one of the duties of Agent Osama bin Laden (CIA, sabbatical).

I believe that the people in the Middle East should have the right to choose whatever government they wish, even if what they choose is not pleasing to the PNAC crew, you, or Dean.

If think you would be surprised at the zeal with which a number of groups would seize on the opportunity to campaign for their cause.

[Classical_Liberal]

19. I read your post

I know the CIA had a hand in it. It doesn't mean we don't have a right to defend ourselves now. No I don't think they have a right to form governments that support people who blow up the trade center. By the most conservative definition it is a war in America's interests. Americans aren't psychic and didn't deserve to have the mad dog turn on us because we patronized him to get the Solviets out. It doesn't look like bin Laden was running for anything in afghanistan. BTW, bin Laden wasn't a Native of Afghanistan and he is also an imperialist. For that matter neither were the solviets.s I think there are extremists on both sides pushing a Huntington's scenero and don't give Al Qaeda any virtue points. They are just islamic pnacers. Osama is a Wahabbi neocon.

[DuctapeFatwa]

24. You might want to read up on the US proxy war with Russia

That is how Osama came to be involved in Afghanistan in the first place. He was just doing his job that you paid him to do.

Assuming that the bush regime is truthful when it says that the association between Agent bin Laden and the US government had terminated prior to the 9-11 events, neither he nor whatever "Al Qaeda" he had sitting in the famous cave with him had the kind of resources necessary to fly airplanes into buildings in Manhattan.

If I were hired as a consultant for Dean, or any other candidate, I think I would urge them to focus more on domestic issues, and avoid the same memes and appeals to prejudices that admittedly do resonate with a good chunk of the affluent voting classes.

There is a much greater threat in both likelihood and immediacy to the security of the US from the extreme economic disparity within the US itself.

In other words, you have a much greater likelihood of having to use what you thought was your kids' college fund to hire security guards to stand in front of your house with an assault rifle than you have of being attacked by a guy in sandals and a beard.

[Classical_Liberal]

26. I know they paid them to fight Solviets

So what? They didn't pay them to hit a building full of Wall Street repukes! Osama isn't poor or a globalization victim. None of the hijackers were. Al Qaeda were obviously was able to send them to flight school. We even know the flight schools they attended. Since these guys didnt have to land the planes their training could be rudimentary. The columbine incidents killed a total of 50 at most.

[DuctapeFatwa]

27. I don't think you're doing Dean any favors here, don't know your intention

I do not believe that the planes were flown by the 19 names chosen apparently at random by the FBI, who do not appear on the passenger lists, and some of whom appear to have not only miraculously survived, but deny even being in New York that day.

If your goal is to portray Dean as a bush clone with better diction and reading skills, then I would say I don't think that's his best strategy.

People who get comfort from the "evildoers who hate freedom" mantra will vote for bush.

There is nothing that Dean or anyone else can do, aside from persuading the PNAC to let them be the on-air talent this time around that will make him seem more like bush than bush.

I honestly believe that assuming there are elections in 2004, and assuming the votes are counted, that even the affluent voting classes are more worried about their bank statement than than the quarterly earnings statements of Mobil or Halliburton.

[Classical_Liberal]

28. Frankly if you believe the FBI chose the hijackers you wouldn't

do any of the candidate you represent any favors, even with 90% of the peace protesters. If you think I must believe this to oppose Bush, or the war of Empire, I think you are deeply irrational. There was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but Al Qaeda have a fundy terrorist agenda. Al Qaeda are a problem, I just don't want to war with non al qaeda and takeover every muslim country like the PNAC and Al Qaeda do. That doesn't mean I assume Al Qaeda isn't a problem.

[DuctapeFatwa]

33. I haven't heard Dean come out against a 9-11 investigation

I am aware that it is the position of the bush regime that the 9-11 events not be looked into too closely, and that if "evildoers who hate freedom" is not a sufficient explanation, then you are "with the terrorists," but I would not recommend that a serious candidate ape this particular posture either.

Where do you think the FBI got the names? They admitted to Congress that they didn't really know who they were.

There has been less investigation of the most basic, fundamental first questions asked type on the 9-11 events than a small town police department would do within 20 minutes of you reporting your truck stolen.

To be perfectly frank, that portion of the public who is prone to blind unquestioning faith in "evildoers" who hate freedom would probably not be attracted to Dean even if neither bush nor PNAC existed.

[Classical_Liberal]

35. I am not opposed to an investigation either

but there are a number of reasons Bush might oppose it that have nothing to do with planning the damned thing. Incompetance being the more obvious explanation. You come up with names by following leads like most investigators. The "you're either with us or a terrorist" stuff you claim I said is just a srawman.

[DuctapeFatwa]

38. Didn't say you said it, I said Dean shouldn't say it

Now if he actually *has* been chosen by PNAC to be the new boy singer, he won't have much choice about what he says. He'll read his cards like a good boy singer (albeit with much less effort than bush) or he'll go the way of those who oppose the regime, which isn't a pleasant road.

What I am saying is that if Dean has NOT been chosen by PNAC, and if he sincerely believes that there will be an election, and that the votes will be counted, he should make more of an effort to distance himself from the official PNAC view, even dressed up with spiffy accessories for a whole new look.

Americans, even the affluent voting class, may not be able to find either Afghanistan or Iraq on a map, but a surprising percentage of them can tell whether that wet stuff on their leg is rain or Cheney piss.

[Classical_Liberal]

39. He is already distanced from the PNAC in not going into

Iraq, Iran, Syria or any other non Al Qaeda associated pnac target. Believing Al Qaeda a security problem is not a position unique to the pnac. Most of the people who protested including myself believe Al Qaeda is a REAL threat the PNAC exploited for their own ends.

[DuctapeFatwa]

43. I understand that the Goebbels strategy is tempting for many candidates

The problem is, that like the greedy king in the story of the goose that laid golden eggs, the bush regime has Goebbeled its way to the point of diminishing returns, which means that there is a very limited political value to those who wish to exploit American fear of otherness by screaming "Al Qaeda" at every turn and turban.

This is exacerbated by the fact that as I mentioned before, even among the affluent voting classes, there is mounting concern over matters much closer to home - or foreclosure of same!

Unless he has made committments to contributors that would preclude it, I would advise Dean to go ahead and put a perceptible distance between himself and PNAC.

He is an educated man; he will be aware that Rome, too, fell, and he will want all the distance he can muster when that happens.

[Classical_Liberal]

44. There is already a perceptable difference to most Americans

foreclosure doesn't mean Americans won't fear more world trade center bombings and I think them likely if America doesn't bring in the UN on the matter, and just bugs out completely. His agenda isn't the pnacs. He is making the UN more powerful and not invading any pnac targets.

[dajabr]

46. In his announcement speech

Dean (as he has before) was extremely critical of the PNAC boys.

And, he spoke about Rome (ie empire).

If you haven't read it, you might find it of interest.

[DuctapeFatwa]

53. I am not talking about cosmetics and eyewash

The US and the UN are the same thing. To talk about "bringing the UN in," is nothing but a fabulous scarf to make that same old blouse look new.

And it will not look new to those with a sharper eye for fashion than those people worrying about their mortgages - and less so for whom owning a home is about as likely as winning the Power Ball.

"Oh, but they don't vote!," say the political consultants.

That is correct. They do not.
But they love their families, and they will do whatever is necessary to feed their kids. That is a greater and more immediate security threat to you than any mullah in any country.

As are all those billions of people who DO know that the UN is an extension of the US. That is your real "Al Qaeda" - all the individual mothers and fathers whose lives have been impacted by the policies of the US - in all its various ensembles.

People in the Majority World do not hate freedom. They want it. They want freedom from the US.

Real regime change is the only thing that can give them that - and the best chance we all have for our children to avoid raising THEIR children in a really big Rwanda.

[Classical_Liberal]

54. If they are the same why does the PNAC want to keep them out

?

[DuctapeFatwa]

55. You mean to tell me that an articulate Dean supporter like yourself

is unfamiliar with the works of Joel Chandler Harris?

Seriously, I think that if you talk with any of the mothers who watched their children die slowly during the 12 years of UN sanctions, or whose surviving babies are still fighting for life from the UN rubber-stamped bombing, or those who have been murdered by the UN-approved Occupation, they can explain to you that there is no difference much more eloquently than I can.

As can the Palestinians, as they count the 69 UN "resolutions" which Israel is currently violating.

[Classical_Liberal]

56. The sanctions policy were an outgrowth of the Anti apartied movement

and you still didn't answer the question. Wolfowitz advocated invasions to do away with them. Personally I would like them to be used on isreal and I am betting you would to.

[DuctapeFatwa]

57. What I am saying is that I don't know if AIPAC and Sharon are enough

They might be enough to get him "elected" in the same sense that bush was, but I am assuming that you are concerned about the safety and security of the planet on which you reside.

I don't know what question you are referring to. I think I have answered everything you have asked. I don't think this is the thread to discuss the history of South Africa, but you can read all about it, it was not unlike the history of the end of the British Raj in India.

You should also be aware that I have not yet seen any candidate from either branch of the corporate party, or any would-be usurpers, who has made a committment to regime change, including repeal of the Patriot Act, cessation of all but humanitarian aid to Israel (which needs it now, since all the money you work hard to give them goes to killing Palestinians, check out the plight of elderly and low-income Israelis sometime), immediate withdrawal of US forces from a long list of places, not least the Middle East, and an immediate halt to interference and puppeteering and resource-looting and gunrunning on a global basis, a domestic health care system along the lines of those enjoyed by Western European countries, a Living Wage, a Right to Housing, and that's just for the first week in office :)

You can say that all sounds unrealistic, and you are correct.
As long as the country, and largely, the world, is run by a US corporate oligarchy that considers you as expendable as a toddler in Gaza, and is willing to sacrifice the lives and health of your family in order to generate additional revenues for their own coffers, it is unrealistic to suppose that Dean or anyone else would dare defy AIPAC or any of the other various PACs - they are politicians, after all, and whatever happens, they will have access to bunkers, and secure undisclosed locations, as will those who distribute the money.

You, on the other hand, will not, and I consider your security a higher priority than that of either the CEO of any oil or defense company, or Ariel Sharon's or Karl Rove's.

We have reached a point where there are more human beings on earth whose lives have been affected negatively by US policies and unbridled greed than have benefitted.

We are balanced precariously on a very pointy petard, and at a time in history where the blip of Western/European pre-eminence has lost its bullet and is sliding down the charts.

It is time to think about the long-term survival of our families, our planet, and our species instead of the short term net gains of General Dynamics and Raytheon.

edit to fix typo

[Classical_Liberal]

58. If the UN is the same, why are the pnac against them?

Are you actually interested in talking to me?

[DuctapeFatwa]

59. I already answered that

I referred you to Joel Chandler Harris, who explains it better than I can.

If the UN were really an independent body, the US would have been voted out, sanctioned, liberated and regime-changed by a coalition of the willing a long time ago.

The stated goals and mission of the UN is in direct conflict with US foreign policy. The UN was created and exists for essentially PR purposes, which are really not even necessary any more since the US now has enough guns and enough money, and enough of it's dollahos installed in enough countries to lead the world in a candlelight chorus of "imperialism means never having to issue a press release."

[Classical_Liberal]

61. It isn' t independent anymore than Congress is independent of

Alabama, which is why we had Jim Crow. Alabama doesn't win all the time which is why we had the Civil Rights Act. Sanctions to my great regret were the liberal compromise done in light of of our treatment of South Africa. A people with a lower body count then Saddam. I think the Bush administrations plans are evil, I don't think it is the only evil. I don't believe the only two important positions are Bush and Osamas. I would like to minimize the importants of both thier posiions rather than choose sides. You claim I am implaying you are with us or the terrorist but yuo very clearly imply if I(or HOward Dean) am scared of Osama I am(we are) the same as the PNAC.

[DuctapeFatwa]

62. LOL! I don't think you intended that to come out the way it did

You are correct. Congress is not independent. Any congresserf who defies AIPAC will go the way of Cynthia McKinney.

The entire system is indeed rotten as the late Queen Mum's teeth.

The question is whether we go ahead and do extraction and replace with something functional, or cover it up with a CNN anchor template cap.

[Classical_Liberal]

63. Cynthia will be re-elected

. The poliical climate changes.

[DuctapeFatwa]

65. I don't think her climate will change to the point of kissing AIPAC's ass

I could be wrong. To tell the truth, I didn't think much of her before she broke from the herd, but I think she and Ms Barbara Lee might just be more interested in the fate of the nation than in swimmin pools and movie stars.

[Classical_Liberal]

66. The climate of not many of her constituants realizing

they have to show up at the primaries has. I am not surprised you don't think much of her. I really don't know why the hell you bother with politics since you obviously have no hope. Why you bother with Americans is an even bigger mystery since we are all the same.

[DuctapeFatwa]

76. I do not have hope that the same policies intoned by a different mouth

will make you safer.

I said that I did not think much of Ms. McKinney until she demonstrated that her interest in the nation extended beyond her own career, meaning I did not think much of her one way or the other.

The top 25% income votes, the others don't.

No candidate that I am aware of has committed to a sweeping change in the current system that maintains that status quo either - and they are wise not to.

Millions of poor people casting votes, and counting those votes, would mean nothing less than revolution, of a sort which would give a huge boost to the chances that our grandchildren will not only reach adulthood, but do so in a nation that does not resemble El Salvador, but would mean a tremendous financial loss for the handful who control the lion's share and then some of the world's resources.

I do not agree that all Americans are the same.

While there is certainly a shared level of complacency, chosen ignorance and insularity as well as shared financial interests among the ever-shrinking and ever richer affluent class, the majority of Americans live in a reality so far removed from that of internet access and campaign fund-raisers and savings accounts and routine medical care that neither really believes that the other exists.

There is also a rapidly changing demographic movement in the US, which renders less relevant the glossy platitudes of pork-barrel politics, which has the potential to develop into a catalyst for regime change, if the forest-view camera pans slowly enough - but this is a two-edged sword; there is also the potential there to solidify the establishment of feudalism into which the US is currently transitioning.

[Classical_Liberal]

77. I don't consider going after al Qaeda to be the same as

going after all arabs. Al Qaeda actually killed people. I think your position is as extreme as saying apples and oranges are the same fruit because they are round and edible. The globalism stuff is just offtopic ranting.

[donsu]

15. AGREE!!

on edit this was in reply to #9

the Iraqi people are not stupid. they can run their own country and get it back running faster and better. even if they fight each other over things, they will be doing it with the electricy on and water running.

[Old and In the Way]

12. Any non-Bush administration is going to have to face the same problem.

I think whoever is elected (other than Bush) will need to go to the UN in a high profile way and give a "mea-culpa" address. Pretty much repudiate the foreign policy of this criminal administration.

Then we will need to marshall a real coalition that focuses on rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure first and once that mission is complete, transition to a real Iraqi government that can represent all the various factions. I think an exit timetable with a solid focus on fixing their infrastructure will be necessary to start repairing the damage we've inflicted on these people over the past 15 years.

[StandWatie]

41. it's not going to get "fixed"

I don't think "al-queda" will take over, bin Ladin and his crew are virulently anti-Shia and were used by Pakistani ISI as shock troops against them in Pakistan.

I think you are going to see a Shia strongman or the current Ayatollah take over and we should just welcome it and say "Howdy, here is a big fat check to rebuild this place we fucked up, sorry" because that's about our best bet of getting a government that is in any degree friendly to us at all.

No way is the place just going to turn into Switzerland, UN or no UN, no matter how long we sit there and get blown to hell in truck bombings.

[Classical_Liberal]

42. I don't agree. Iraq has more than just shias

I think it will turn into chaotic warlordism like Afghanistan.

[StandWatie]

45. maybe break apart republics..

A Kudistan, Some Hussein clan strongman to take over the Sunni Triangle, and a Shia republic in the south, but the place has too much money to turn into Afghanistan and there is no way in hell an outside solution is going to be accepted by the Iraqi's UN or not.

[Classical_Liberal]

47. Afghanistan has potential oil wealth as well

I think the UN would be better because it will insure the hawks aren't interested any longer than they have to be.

[StandWatie]

48. you think a UN sponsered government would survive?

I don't really believe it would...

[Classical_Liberal]

50. It has a better chance than a US sponsored one

There is also a higher probability of our troups coming home soon because repukes won't want to linger if it is a UN operation. They will create a constiutution and corresponding institutions quicker. There won't be any oil profits.

[StandWatie]

51. this is true..

I don't know if Dean or anyone else could convince people to clean up W's mess but I suppose there is no harm in trying.

[ErasureAcer]

49. Al Qaeda?

What the hell are you talking about? Has it even been proven that Al Qaeda members are in Iraq now? It is the Iraqi people's choice to run their government, either through action or inaction. It is their decision only. If Al Qaeda somehow comes in when the USA leaves...that is the Iraqi people's fault...and they get what they deserve because they have no balls.

[Classical_Liberal]

52. Al Qaeda is a threat to America remember?

?

[sangh0]

79. I would hand it over to the UN. Dean would not

Though Dean has called for a greater UN role, Dean does NOT support handing all authority to the UN. AT least, not according to Dean's website

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8372&JServSessionIdr011=y6mptx8fpr.app1a&news_iv_ctrl=1421

"I call on the Bush Administration to take the following steps to encourage our proven allies and friends, including France, Germany, India, and Turkey to join us in Iraq and to accelerate the reconstruction process. We must:

Work with the UN to build the largest coalition possible to help us succeed in Iraq;

Make clear our intention to share decision-making on security and reconstruction issues in Iraq with those countries and international institutions that join the international coalition;

Prioritize restoring law and order and the resumption of electricity, water, and sanitation services -- they are fundamental to success in all other areas;

Focus on developing Iraqi capacity to undertake key functions as soon as possible;

Decentralize the operations of the Coalition Authority and make money more forthcoming and flexible;

Employ the sizable number of available Iraqis with short term public works projects and get state-run enterprises up and running, even if they must be downsized and privatized later;

Push for UN oversight of the successor to the Oil for Food program;
Award reconstruction contracts to the best US or foreign bidder in a transparent and open process. "

He calls for UN oversight of ONE program (Oil for Food), "working with the UN" (which is not "handing over authority to the UN"), and "share decision-making" with the UN, which is also NOT "handing over authority")

[SharonAnn]

80. If Dean should answer this because a president should know,

then shouldn't we first ask Bush? After all, he IS the acting president.

When he gives us the answer, then we can determine whether his or his opponents plan(s) is/are better.

But at the president, i wouldn't bother Dean or any other candidate with this question since we haven't even demanded it of our president.

[ieoeja]

81. One Disagreement

I don't believe it is a given the Shi`ites would take over. The Ba`athists are probably still pretty strong and much better organized. I would put my money on Saddam regaining power if we walked away and nobody else came in (Iran?).