Dean Muffles, Kucinich Amplifies Anti-War Voice

[Karmadillo]

I was wondering whether I should wait to post this until the night crew had a chance to mop up the blood from today's battles, but on second thought, I decided there probably wouldn't be a lot of disagreement with what Rothschild has to say. What will be interesting is waiting to see whether those voters attracted to Dean primarily for his antiwar stance will drift elsewhere if he's not careful in how he expresses his support for the continued occupation of Iraq or if he mutes his criticism of those Democrats who voted for the War Resolution. I have no idea what percentage of Dean's support comes from these supporters, but I'm sure Kucinich wouldn't mind seeing them move to him.

http://www.progressive.org/webex03/wx0910b03.html

In Tuesday night's debate, Howard Dean muffled his anti-war voice. The former Vermont governor, who has risen a wave of goodwill for his opposition to the Iraq War, did not distinguish himself as the peace candidate in the debate sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and Fox News.

While he did say the war "was a mistake," he added, "We cannot lose the peace in Iraq." He said there would be chaos, and Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalists allied with Iran might take hold.

That's a different answer than he gave in last Thursday's debate, when he said, "We need more troops--more foreign troops. Ours need to come home."

On Tuesday night, only Dennis Kucinich was that outspoken. "Get the U.N. in, and the U.S. out," said Kucinich, also the only candidate to state unequivocally that he would vote against Bush's $87 billion request.

<edit>

But one of the reasons <Dean> has been doing well was his courage on the war question. If he continues to lose his voice on this issue, he risks alienating the very people he owes his success to.

end

[JohnKleeb]

1. What I like about Kucinich karma is that

He was always outspokenly against it and even spoke at an rally. Which means he took time of his own to speak to the people about the evils of this war, I went to an anti war rally myself and I sacrifaced my time against this unjust war.

[Terwilliger]

3. the first anti-Iraq war protest I went to was April 2002

I knew it was nothing but bullshit.

[JohnKleeb]

5. what was bull?

btw Terwill, on Harkin, it seems that he came on TV and regretted his vote against the war. I dont have a link. Oh I think you mean the war.

[Terwilliger]

8. the war

was bull :)

[sandnsea]

4. "I wish you would have said no"

He turned to Gephardt and I think made a comment about him being our House Democratic leader, and said when he was standing in the Rose Garden advising President Bush, "I wish you would have told him no". It was a great moment!

[JohnKleeb]

6. thats my Kucinich

[sasquatch]

22. Sweet

GO DENNIS GO:bounce::toast:

[Rose Siding]

2. False premise

There is nothing between the statements that contradicts the other. Why would internationalizing the troops be interpreted as not wanting to win the peace?

[Terwilliger]

7. because it doesn't address how we got there

nor will it address the fact that the US doesn't want to give up control

Democrats should be about getting MANY troops in with the goal of making the country a democracy, or get the fuck out and leave total control to the UN decision-makers

[gate of the sun]

13. are you suggesting a "real democracy"?

the one the Iraqi's would vote for? even if it makes the US government shake their heads in disbelief? Or are you talking imposed democracy? and then there is this, to impose democracy by conquering a country can never be a democracy if it was imposed. that is called dictatorship.....even if it is for you own good. That I call bullshit. To invade and conquer a country and impose our ideals...ones by the way we are not even living by.....is what I call really bullshit. For one that is not why we went there and no. 2 what your talking about is conquering. Sorry I think that idea really stinks...unless we really give it to the people and I doubt we are likely to by the way we are a republic.....the US is really afraid of democracy.....unless of course we are talking about freeing........ I mean conquering other countries.

[Terwilliger]

16. I'm talking about self-government for the Iraqi people

whether or not they turn around and attack us is NOT for a democracy like ours to decide

OnEdit: added people to subj.

[KoKo]

15. Nato rather than UN, I would think. UN is not popular with Iraqi's....I

don't think Nato would be either......but Nato didn't sanction them. I'm not sure if NATO did any bombing raids on them........though........I seem to remember something. But that kind of coalition is the only way I see for us to withdraw some troops gracefully......but won't happen with Bush. He couldn't cough down the crow he would have to eat, and the control he would have to give up......just my 2 cents.....

[hedgetrimmer]

9. anti-war is anti-war peace is peace dean is dean

there is no peace in iraq... iraq is not peaceful... international troops is not anti war... international troops is not peace... dean is not "anti-war" dean is not peace...

dean is dean peace is peace anti-war is anti-war

[Jim Sagle]

10. Everything is everything. Aummmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Terwilliger]

17. Aummmmm?

what the fuck is that?

If you dont understand, maybe you ask informed questions.

[Tinoire]

24. Another "gem" n/t

[ErasureAcer]

11. Kucinich is the answer

wake up people.

He is the only one who is demanding the pentagon cut its budget. His proposal is a modest 15%...back to early clintonesque numbers.

All the other current dems are too fucking chicken shit to stand up to the pentagon.

I, and Dennis, want our country back from the motherfuckers in the Pentagon controlling our tax dollars.

Support Kucinich for he is the only one who wants to crush the pentagon from wasting tens of billions of our dollars that go to craptacular shit.

www.kucinich.us

[ProudGerman]

12. *scratching head*

While he did say the war "was a mistake," he added, "We cannot lose the peace in Iraq." He said there would be chaos, and Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalists allied with Iran might take hold.

That's a different answer than he gave in last Thursday's debate, when he said, "We need more troops--more foreign troops. Ours need to come home."


How are those two statements in bold contradictory? I don't see how those two statements make it look like he's changing his view when compared to Kucinich. Unless you're saying that Kucinich's plan is to high tail it out of there and just forget about it.

The first statement is just that, a statement on the current affairs in Iraq. We tore that country apart, we simply can't just up and leave. The second statement is also just that, a statement referring to his best idea on how to fix it and avoid forgetting about the first statement.

I simply can't grasp anything remotely contradictory about the two statements. The war was a mistake, and we need to fix it. We also need to bring our troops home, but only when more troops from the UN are brought in. It'd be a worse crime to just up and leave now.

[Terwilliger]

19. but that wasn't his attitude originally

the folks who supported him so vehemently didn't realize they would get such a change in stance. Frankly, it's like Bush claiming there's a reason to go to war. Was there? Did Dean say earlier that we needed to stop the war before it started?

Fine.

What did he say after the war started? "Ooooops! Political hot-potato...let's play politics!" :eyes:

[TLM]

39. Oh please... he said we should never have gone...

but now that we are there, we have to clean up our mess

That's not a change in stance. The war is still wrong and we still shouldn't be there, but it has already happened, we are there and Bush did take us to war. We can't just turn our backs on the problems we created and leave like Kucinich wants to do.

We have to clean up our mess.


I hope Kucinich’s irresponsible position on refusing to clean up our mess in Iraq doesn't also show up in his other positions... does he support doing other things half assed, causing problems, then just walking away? I don't want a man like that in the white house.

[KoKo]

14. In answer, Yes, he's just about lost me after last night's debate......I

posted about his comments on Iran and Syria, which I disagreed with and which set alarm bells off in my head. I've been fond of Kucinich........will take another look.

I need to check out some Kucinich bashing threads to see what's wrong with him before I make up my mind.! LOL's just being funny.....Getting information isn't bashing unless it's done in a cruel way, imho.........

But, to answer your question, yes, I think Dean will lose support if he softens his anti-Iraq Invasion stance. At least from folks who are hard core who protested and demonstrated in the streets.

[w4rma]

21. Dean Presents 7-Point Plan for Multilateral Reconstruction in Iraq (April)

Washington, D.C. (April 9, 2003)

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Governor Howard Dean, M.D. called for United Nations cooperation in helping rebuild Iraq.

"We knew from the outset we could win this war without much help from others. But we cannot win the peace by continuing to go it alone," Governor Dean said. "Our goal should be what the Administration has promised-an Iraq that is stable, self-sufficient, whole and free. Our strategy to achieve that goal should be based on a partnership with three sides-U.S., international and Iraqi-and a program that begins with seven basic points."

Those points are:

• A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.
• Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.
• The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.
• The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.
• Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.
• A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.
• A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.
• "We must hold the Administration to its promises before the war, and create a world after the war that is safer, more democratic, and more united in winning the larger struggle against terrorism and the forces that breed it," Governor Dean said.

"That is, after all, now much more than a national security objective," he added. "It is a declaration of national purpose, written in the blood of our troops, and of the innocent on all sides who have perished."
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5364&news_iv_ctrl=1441

[DemBones DemBones]

23. Dean also has gone from "My stance is close to AIPAC's" to

"Get rid of an enormous number of Israeli settlements" (hardly AIPAC's thinking!) He's a zig zag Zell, I fear.

Do give Dennis another look. He's been consistent and his positions are not extreme. He wants to save what the great old Dems like FDR set up. The GOP (and too many Dems) would see all that weakened -- privatize Social Security, privatize TVA, etc.

Many people say Dennis is the best candidate but they're going to vote Dean because he's "electable." But you should always vote your first choice in the primaries unless, perhaps, you're in a state where Lieberman might win -- then you vote for whoever is polling 2nd!

[REP]

30. Ow Ow Ow I Hurt Myself Laughing!

Another knee-slapper! I swear, your write the funniest things! He's been consistent ... well, except for a spectacular flip-flop on reproductive rights, and his stand on the First Amendment and how it should be amended because of his his very emotional feelings over the flag.

[TLM]

40. You gotta love how these bashers work...

They pull lies out of their ass and try to accuse Dean of being a hyper pro-israel AIPAC puppet because he (gasp) went to israel to study the situation. Yet when the facts show Dean is very fair and reasonable in his position on israel and the basher lies were BS, and the real AIPAC puppets start attacking Dean for not being pro-israel enough... the bashers accused Dean of zig zaging.

Someone seems to have forgotten that Clinton had Israel giving up most of the west bank in the oslo accords.


Same with the war... the bashers try to paint Dean as being opposed to war PERIOD, and that he is a super anti-war leftie. So when Dean's position is not what they claimed, and it turns out Dean is against this war and not war in general if there is a good reason for it, they accuse Dean of again zig zaging.



Meanwhile Kucinich has fliped on abortion and flag burning to try and win the dem nomination and his supporters ignore that to bash Dean.

[Karmadillo]

33. He's definitely worth a look, KoKo01, and the bashing threads aren't shy

about pointing out perceived flaws. The two issues that seem to come up most often in a negative light are his evolution/flip-flop (choose your term depending on how much you like him) regarding abortion and his position on flag burning. He discusses the abortion issue on his website and I thought he was fairly convincing, but then again, I wanted to believe. Your mileage may vary. diamondsoul also posted a good explanation, but I didn't bookmark it. I didn't see anything about the flag burning issue. Maybe someone else has a relevant link. All in all, his strengths, at least for me, hugely outweigh his history on these issues.

He also gets some grief on the bankruptcy of Cleveland during his tenure as mayor. Here's a link to a profile of his career up to 1996 that gives a fairly well balanced recitation of all parties' point of view.

http://www.clevelandmagazine.com/editorial/thismonth_features.asp?docid=363

Best of luck in making your choice on a candidate. To end on an idealistic note (and to not so subtly attempt to influence you), here's what he believes would happen were he nominated. Not guaranteed, I guess, but it's certainly the kind of thing we need to shift the US out its current pattern of slow (and recently, not so slow) decline:

http://www.bankofknowledge.net/2004/archives/000211.html

Yesterday, Rob asked several questions:
1) It is almost certain that you will be working with a Republican-controlled Congress at least initially during your tenure. Given that, do you believe it likely that you will be able to get the Congress to pass bills authorizing programs for national health care, withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO, reversal of the Bush tax cuts (which will probably be permanent by then), and dealing with other hot-button issues that the Republicans have been so steadfastly against. You can?t just declare these things by executive order; and I don?t see how you can get such ?radical liberal? programs passed. That makes many of your 10 key issues non-starters.

My nomination will set the stage for a Democratic Congress. In 1932, when president Franklin Roosevelt was nominated, he ran on a platform of broad economic reform, which excited people to come out in vote in their own enlightened self-interest. As a result, FDR led a Democratic sweep, which resulted in a pickup of 90 House seats and 13 Senate seats. This was accomplished because he represented profound change. He represented jobs, he represented rebuilding America, he represented a hope for popular control over predatory corporations. My nomination will reverse the results of the 1994 election when the Democrats were unable to regain the House and lost the Senate principally because the parties? ties to corporate interests muted the differences between the parties and discouraged the Democratic base. My nomination will excite the Democratic base, will broaden the reach of the party, and will engage third party activists to join us in a mighty effort to reclaim our government.

[sasquatch]

18. What he said borders on DLC southern Democrat racism

What he doesn't think the Iraqis can run their own damn country so we've got to be there getting our young men killed because they don't want us there. This is BULLSHIT to the highest level I know he is trying to fight off his old DLC day's but, he should be more evolved than that. For crying out loud Iraq is where the Cradle of Civilization is guy's so we just copied their damn blue print. They can run there own damned country so let them do it. If Iraq wants to break up in three sepereate republics fine let'em do it. It's there damned land.

[TLM]

41. You know nothing about the current situation in Iraq...

If we bail now after taking out Saddam, 3 really bad things will happen.

First the bathists and saddam loyalists will SLAUGHTER anybody who has shown any support tot he US. It will make the coup in Chile look like a fucking picnic in the park.

Second the Islamic fundis and forces from Iran will have the majority of power in the country and if allowed to do so, they will set up a Islamic fundi government just like in Iran, which means more killing and more oppression, especially of women.

Third, Iraq will become a hotbed for terrorists... just like in Afghanistan. Which is another country where we started wars then just left the country to rot, the Taliban gained control because Russia and the US destroyed the power structure there, just as we have done in Iraq. And we abandoned our responsibility and left the country to the well armed religious nuts.


Dean is right, we need to bring in the UN and phase out the US.

Kucinich seems to just want to leave our mess and let the rest of the world deal with it, or not, and that is a completely irresponsible thing to do.

[w4rma]

20. Its the same position he's allways held.

opposed the Iraq War
opposed the Vietnam War
supported the Afghanistann War (although he says Bush is doing a horrible job there)
supported Desert Storm

Folks need to realize that he's playing to win the election. He's not playing to make a rukus and lose to Bush. Neither are his supporters, as far as I can tell.

President Howard Dean, 2005-2012

[diamondsoul]

25. "Folks need to realize that he's playing to win the election."

Oh, "folks" do realize that. Guess what? We don't want another politics as usual compromise with the far right kinda guy.

I am not interested in a guy who is "playing to win an election" because that's exactly how we got here to begin with. I want a guy who is "playing" to win the people, and the people's needs. A guy who isn't "playing" at all, but rather battling to restore his country, OUR country, to what it's supposed to be.

[Terwilliger]

26. Thank you

:loveya:

[diamondsoul]

28. Heh! I'm a little crankier than usual tonight,

can you tell?

I got pissed again reading Will's thread on Sept 11th. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not a pleasant emotion. I'm sick of the half-ways and "playing to win an election". It sounds as disgusting as it seems to have worked out to be.

Question for you, did you like Clinton when he was President?

[Terwilliger]

35. yep

but I wasnt very politically aware back then

[blm]

36. Yet, Deanies accused Edwards, Gephardt & Kerry of playing politics

with their vote for the resolution.

The sanctimony was fairly thick here at DU then.

[TLM]

43. So do the DK supporters... because that's exactly what they did.

Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, and Gephardt voted for a war they knew was wrong, because they thought it would help their careers.


Dean, Kucinich, CMB, and sharpton were the ones who showed real leadership in opposing the war from the start.

[TLM]

42. Kucinich is playing....

He played on abortion.

He plaed on flag burning.

He flip floped on those issues to play better in the dem primary.

[loyalsister]

27. Flexibility

The position that it's impossible for there to be a need for any need for military action is it's own brand of inflexible fundamentalism.
Dean attracts a wider plurality of supporters because he's all over the map. Not being pigeon holed- offering something for everyone is a very good strategy. Bush pretended to be a guy who would do that then turned out to be a right wing political fundie. He would never have gotten elected as a radical rightist. Just like a radical leftist has no chance.
Swing voters are ordinary people with lives that they want to maintain without disrutption. They prefer to stay where they are rather than experiment with an upside down change. Particularly if it took radical change they didn't ask for to get into a situation they don't like. They form a huge plurality, know something is wrong, prefer moderation. They want to hang onto what comforts they still have as they seek change.
Many who follow politics closely are aware of what it takes to win and consider winning in 2004 to be THE priority because it is going to benefit all of us to get these guys out of office.
I know the idealists are more hopeful than that, but moderates who make up the majority of the population are not prepared for radical change the same way this small minority of activists who glorifies it is.

[sangh0]

34. Bush* is "flexible" also

He first thought we shouldn't reduce the amt of arsenic in our water. Then, in a demonstration of "flexibility", he changed his mind

He first thought we should reduce the amt of CO2 in our air. Then, in a demonstration of "flexibility", he changed his mind

He first thought we shouldn't have a Homeland Security Agency. Then, in a demonstration of "flexibility", he changed his mind....

[stickdog]

29. Because Dean didn't the exact same thing, he changed his

position?

Damn, this crap is getting tiresome.

[G_j]

31. not the change so much for me

With a situation as hairy this one, I could understand some shifting. I just happen to disagree with him.
I prefer DK because he is a "peace candidate". But I'll allow Dean to say what he thinks is right. It simply means we have choices when we pick a candidate.

[LWolf]

32. You said it:

" I prefer DK because he is a "peace candidate". (among many other reasons!) But I'll allow Dean to say what he thinks is right. It simply means we have choices when we pick a candidate."

:thumbsup:

[TLM]

37. That's not a different answer... that's two parts of the same answer.

"While he did say the war "was a mistake," he added, "We cannot lose the peace in Iraq." He said there would be chaos, and Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalists allied with Iran might take hold.

That's a different answer than he gave in last Thursday's debate, when he said, "We need more troops--more foreign troops. Ours need to come home."

That's two parts of the same answer... it was a mistake and we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, but now that we've taken out Saddam we have to secure the country or it will fall to the extremists who would be even worse. The way we do that is to get UN troops in, and phase US troops out.

I'm starting to think this whole one minute answer crap is being done just so the pundants can nit pick the answers and accuse candidates of not giving the exact same answers that they have given when they had 10 minutes or 20 minutes to talk.

[janx]

44. Don't worry.

If that's the best the pundits and Dean opponents can come up with, he's still in very good shape.

They are desperate and are looking for anything, ANYTHING--even distortions. It's an old game.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Dean will surely start dropping in the polls and

Kuchinch will start to rise. Any day now.