The Myth About Dean 's Courage For Being Anti-War Early

[DrFunkenstein]

Dean was a complete long shot from a nowhere state and no real rationale for being in the contest. People who were paying attention at the time understand that Dean's anti-war statements were also his biggest applause lines. Despite hardly being a pacifist by any stretch, he responded to his audience reactions like a true politician.

Dean saw that his numbers were going up the more vigorously he opposed Bush, and you can actually watch his transformation from moderate Governor to radical activist (although he skipped out on the protests just in case). The IWR was the best thing that ever happened to Dean, because it gave him a wedge over the obviously more qualified and knowledgable Sen. Kerry. Outside the IWR, their stances on Iraq were almost indistinguishable. And so Dean dutifully gripped the issue as a crutch, and a substitute for a larger policy agenda.

Dean was very well served by the internet-driven anti-war movement that had built up at the same time as his candidacy. He was also well-served by a grassroots campaign that was largely out of his hands, although he played the demagogue with appropriate panache.

I am still surprised when I hear people talking about his courage for opposing the war early, but these supporters seem oblivious to the political nature of that courage. Without opposing the war, Dean would be an also-ran at best. As it stands, he is running on a platform of 4 years of anti-Bush to great success.

<>

[wtmusic]

1. Funk, just keep spewing it out

with no links, to boot.


However, thanks for the definition of 'panache'. I see I can reference it for this post as well.

[DrFunkenstein]

6. I Wrote It In Response To Another Post In GD

You can link me.

[wtmusic]

8. Thanks Funk, but...

I've got better things to do than cover your ass.

[DrFunkenstein]

10. That's Ok

I've already got underwear.;)

[Cha]

2. It's only a myth in your head....

John Nichols of "The Nation" magazine gives Dean full credit for being an early anti-Iraq invasion supporter.

And I don't have time to post any anti kerry posts ..I'm too busy defending Dean from your tiresome posts.

[Mairead]

27. Given that Dean was still in favor of invading in mid-February

I'd guess that either Nichols has a ...unique... definition of 'early' or he's been confused by the hype too.

(edit) From Tapper's 20th Feb column:

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

[bearfartinthewoods]

57. let's see...feb 20th plus 60 days equals...

when did the war start? hmmm.....maybe bush was getting advice from the doctor?

[TLM]

59. Lame, you continue to ignore this simple fact...

the 30-60 day comment was prefaced on:

A. There being weapons found.
B. The UN refusing to act when presented with proof of weapons.
C. The use of force by the US being limited to disarming Saddam, not taking over Iraq.


Dean says over and over that he is against unilateral action. Then someone asks him under what circumstances he would support unilateral action, so Dean lists off this thing and that thing and the other thing that would all have to take place in order for unilateral action to be justified, then he makes a point of saying that NONE of those things have happened.

Yet you dishonest desperate lying bashers take that quote, remove the context, and act like it shows Dean supports unilateral action.

It is ridiculous.

[bearfartinthewoods]

81. so you are saying that all these "ifs" preceeded the given quote?

got a link? i am not a lying dean basher. i don't like him, i'll admit but if this is all BS, i'll admit i was taken in just as big a font.

show me the rest of the article with the ifs included please.

[TLM]

83. The IF's were not quoted in the Salon piece, no.

However in all of the statements Dean had made when asked what would constitute justification for the US acting alone, Dean listed off these things over and over and pointed out over and over they had not happened and that is why he was against unilateral action.


I quoted some stuff from Dean from an interview he did 5 days after that salon piece, where he again pointed these things out in detail.

[Mairead]

86. Actually, his position 'evolved' *literally* overnight

The day after Tapper's column he was talking 'if'. But until and including that day, he wasn't doing any 'if' at all.

[edzontar]

3. You forgot to mention that DEAN WAS RIGHT!!!!

While most of the others were way wrong on this issue.

[DrFunkenstein]

7. About The 30-60 Days?

Or that Saddam was evil and needed to be disarmed? Or maybe because he "tend(s) to believe the President?"

[TLM]

18. Both of those things... 30-60 days and disarming...

both were prefaced on there being PROOF of weapons and a real threat.



Some reporters asks Dean under what circumstances he would support use of force against Iraq and Dean says something like, IF we find WMD's, and IF Saddam won't destory them and IFthe UN won't use force to destoy those WMD's, then I would give Saddam 30-60 days to disarm and then IF he refused I would use force to disarm him.

And you bashers scream, Dean wants to attack Saddam in 30 days!


Do you really think that people are stupid enough that they won;t see through the spin you put on what Dean said?

[Mairead]

35. On 20th February, Salon published a Tapper column about Dean

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

Sounds to me as though he was taking for granted the notion that Iraq needed to be more disarmed than it already had been, and that the US should do it unilaterally unless the UN did it. Where is there an 'if there is proof'?

[TLM]

53. You can't spell basher without BS

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

Sounds to me as though he was taking for granted the notion that Iraq needed to be more disarmed than it already had been,"

Who Dean or the author of the piece?

Dean has been clear that he supported the ongoing process of UN inspection and disarmerment... that's what he was talking about.


"and that the US should do it unilaterally unless the UN did it. "

Nice spin... and with the quote right there. Amazing. Dean says "but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations." And you try to spin that as if he was saying we should do it unilaterally?

What he said was that unilaterial action was the very last opition, only to be taken after multiple other factors were present.

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

Exactly as I said... IF IF IF IF, and you bashers ignore all of that to spin Dean's statment like he's got a jones for war with Iraq.

It would be like me asking under what circumstances you would kill a man, and you saying well to defend myself from an attack I would kill, but only if my life was in danger. Then I quote you, "I would kill" to show you're really a blood thristy mad man looking to slaughter someone for kicks.



"Where is there an 'if there is proof'?"


In just about every fucking statement Dean has made on the subject, that's where.



GWEN IFILL: You have said that the president has not made his case for leading an attack or starting an attack in Iraq. Why don't you make your case against that for us?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: Sure. I think there's a high threshold for a unilateral attack, and the United States has traditionally set the moral tone for foreign policy in the world. My view of this is since Iraq is not an imminent danger to the United States, the United States should not unilaterally attack Iraq. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. They do not have much of a nuclear program, if they have one at all left. And they have not... there is not any particular evidence that is convincing that they have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. All those three things would constitute, in my view, a reason to defend our country by unilaterally attacking. But those are not the cases. Sec. Powell and the president have not made those cases well.

We believe... I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, and they are a threat to many nations in the region, but not to the United States. Therefore in my view, the United States ought not to attack unilaterally. The United Nations should disarm Saddam, and we should be a part of that effort. The risk for us to unilaterally attack Iraq is that other nations will adopt our policy, and I can very easily see perhaps the Chinese saying one day, "well, Taiwan presents an imminent threat, and therefore we have the right to attack Taiwan." What we do matters, and morals matter in foreign policy.

GWEN IFILL: Governor, by my count, you just used some version of the word "unilateral" six times in that response. If... the president would argue he is not favoring a unilateral attack, that he has support from Britain and other nations and is now going to the United Nations for a second resolution. Under what circumstances could you imagine a multilateral attack?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.

[bearfartinthewoods]

58. yeah...right....

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


Dr. Howard Dean
ON EDIT... forgot the atribution..

[TLM]

63. It doesn't matter how big you make your quote...

when you ignore the prefaced conditions and remove all context.


IF there are weapons found, and IF the UN upon getting proof of these weapons refuses to act, and IF Saddam doesn't destroy them... then and only then would Dean regrettably support unilateral action... and then only to the end of disarming, not invading the country and taking over.

The only way you can prop up this attack on Dean, is to ignore the context and ignore the more detailed quotes Dean has made about his position.

GWEN IFILL: You have said that the president has not made his case for leading an attack or starting an attack in Iraq. Why don't you make your case against that for us?


FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: Sure. I think there's a high threshold for a unilateral attack, and the United States has traditionally set the moral tone for foreign policy in the world. My view of this is since Iraq is not an imminent danger to the United States, the United States should not unilaterally attack Iraq. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. They do not have much of a nuclear program, if they have one at all left. And they have not... there is not any particular evidence that is convincing that they have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. All those three things would constitute, in my view, a reason to defend our country by unilaterally attacking. But those are not the cases. Sec. Powell and the president have not made those cases well.

We believe... I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, and they are a threat to many nations in the region, but not to the United States. Therefore in my view, the United States ought not to attack unilaterally. The United Nations should disarm Saddam, and we should be a part of that effort. The risk for us to unilaterally attack Iraq is that other nations will adopt our policy, and I can very easily see perhaps the Chinese saying one day, "well, Taiwan presents an imminent threat, and therefore we have the right to attack Taiwan." What we do matters, and morals matter in foreign policy.

GWEN IFILL: Governor, by my count, you just used some version of the word "unilateral" six times in that response. If... the president would argue he is not favoring a unilateral attack, that he has support from Britain and other nations and is now going to the United Nations for a second resolution. Under what circumstances could you imagine a multilateral attack?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.

[bearfartinthewoods]

67. what's the date on that interview?

and i ignored none of the context given for the specified quote.

you are adding things and i'd like to know when the interview you quote was done.

[TLM]

73. The interview was from February 25, 2003

That's 5 days after the Salon Piece you are quoting which was 2/20/03.

"and i ignored none of the context given for the specified quote."

Yes you did... you cut out the whole first half of it.


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


Why cut out the part where Dean specificaly says, "that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations."... if not to try and make it sound as if he was in favor of acting without the UN?

[bearfartinthewoods]

77. because

he says if they won't go, we go alone.

which was exactly what bush did.

[TLM]

80. Again there's those darn IF's you keep ignoring...

IF there was a imminent threat, IF there was proof of WMD, IF the UN refused to help, and IF Saddam wouldn't destroy them... then we'd act alone, and then only to disarm, not to take over Iraq.

That seems reasonable to me.

And it is a far shot from Dean supporting unilateral action.

[bearfartinthewoods]

85. is there a link to the gwen article?

[Larkspur]

4. Love that picture of Dean, Dr. F

It shows his warmth and love for the common people as a natural expression of who he is.

Without opposing the war, Dean would be an also-ran at best. As it stands, he is running on a platform of 4 years of anti-Bush to great success.
True, Dean did have to make a stand on the war since he was running for President, but being the seasoned campaigner that he is, I'm sure that he was well aware of the fact that polls fluctuate and if WMD's were found in Iraq after invasion, Dean's Prez bid would have been DOA.

Dean, like Al Gore, the 23 senators and 2/3's of the House Dems, who voted against the war resolution, have been proven right -- Saddam was not an imminent threat to the USA and our war was unjust.

Kerry's ship is not only floundering, but is getting read to capsize.

[DrFunkenstein]

9. I Picked The Photo For Its Ambiguity

Not much point in showing him looking totally silly.

Kerry also said that there was no imminent threat. Just like Dean also said we needed the threat of force to make Saddam comply.

And the point of the post is that Dean's campaign would have been DOA if he had not racheted up his anti-war talk. There's even an article in Salon where he talks about leading-on pacifists as part of "the game."

[Larkspur]

19. What was Kerry's game?

Piss on the anti-Iraq War protestors so that he can make up for his incorrect anti-Iraq war vote in 1991?

Here's Dean in April 2003, writing a response to a critic of his war stance Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong

The 2002 Iraq War resolution did nothing to hold Bush accountable for starting a war. Congress, with the Dems help, capitulated to Bush over this issue. Kerry was wrong, just like Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman, and the others who voted for it.

[TLM]

31. Threat of force and unilaterial invasion & take over are not the same

The threat of force was through the UN and to the end of disarming Saddam, should he be found to in fact have WMD.

Kerry voted for a resolution that gave bush full discretion to attack as he pleased, without the UN, and to the end of take over, not disarming Iraq.


Kerry flat out said Saddam had nukes and if he was wrong about that, not to vote for him... so I won't.



"And the point of the post is that Dean's campaign would have been DOA if he had not racheted up his anti-war talk."

I do not think he'd be DOA, rather he'd be tied with the other dems who supported Bush war... however sicne he was against it from the start and very vocal about it, he's far ahead of those dems.

"There's even an article in Salon where he talks about leading-on pacifists as part of "the game."

Please quote it...

[DrFunkenstein]

37. Are You Lying Or Ignorant?

The threat of force was through the UN and to the end of disarming Saddam, should he be found to in fact have WMD.

Kerry voted for a resolution that gave bush full discretion to attack as he pleased, without the UN, and to the end of take over, not disarming Iraq.

Kerry flat out said Saddam had nukes and if he was wrong about that, not to vote for him... so I won't.

1. The threat of force was not for finding WMDs (which was the whole purpose of the inspections!), it was for Saddam's relentless obstruction. Once it became clear that Saddam would not submit, only then would invasion be justified.

2. Bush already had full discretion to invade Iraq, just as Clinton had invaded Haiti, based on prior UN resolutions and US law. The resolution served to limit Bush to Iraq, although it also gave him political cover he shouldn't have had.

3. Kerry DID NOT say Saddam had nukes. He said "If you believe that Saddam with nuclear weapons would not pose a threat, don't vote for me." A slight f'n difference, don't you think? Kerry explicitly said Saddam DID NOT possess nuclear weapons, but intelligence was very strong that he sought to rebuild the nuclear program that had been dismantled after the Gulf War.

[TLM]

55. Ahhh so your goal is to try and show Dean is as dirty as Kerry...

regarding support for Bush oil war. Good luck! LOL!


"1. The threat of force was not for finding WMDs (which was the whole purpose of the inspections!), it was for Saddam's relentless obstruction. Once it became clear that Saddam would not submit, only then would invasion be justified."


WTF are you even responding to... my comment was regarding you saying "Just like Dean also said we needed the threat of force to make Saddam comply." I was pointing out that the FORCE which Dean supported using as a threat was to disarm Saddam, (bombing weapons sites or labs etc.) not to invade Iraq and take over the country.

Clinton used force against Iraq several times without invading and taking over the country.


"2. Bush already had full discretion to invade Iraq, just as Clinton had invaded Haiti, based on prior UN resolutions and US law. The resolution served to limit Bush to Iraq, although it also gave him political cover he shouldn't have had."


Bush did not have a legal right to invade Iraq, that's why he needed congressional authroization for use of force. At most Bush could do an emergency police action and then would still have to go to congress for approval.

Your BSing to bash Dean is really gettign pathetically desperate.


"3. Kerry DID NOT say Saddam had nukes. He said "If you believe that Saddam with nuclear weapons would not pose a threat, don't vote for me." A slight f'n difference, don't you think?"

No, it is a big f'n difference... from what Kerry actually said:

Kerry Said “If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

Oops... I have the quote and a source.

Looks to me as if Kerry said, "Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons" and if someone doesn't beleive that they shouldn't vote for Kerry. But then that's when Kerry was supporting the war because he thought it would help his career, when he saw Dean standing firm against the war and getting so much support, Kerry changed his tune.

[Cha]

38. Whose quote is this...?

"There's even an article in Salon where he talks about leading-on pacifists as part of "the game."

"Please quote it..."

[DrFunkenstein]

43. Some Links Got Tossed Out When I Ran Ad-Aware

Give me some time and I'll find it. I'm sure Nick J knows exactly what I'm referring to, though.

[DrFunkenstein]

44. Here It Is, Zidzi

"Dean is stirring up antiwar people," a senior advisor to one of his Democratic opponents says. "They are against all war, not just against war without U.N. support. When we do go to war, and Dean says he's with our troops and president in time of national crisis, the antiwar activists he's cultivated will turn on him quickly."

Dean says that's fine, and denies that there's any inconsistency. "I think people are madly trying to find one," he says. "It's part of the game."

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html

I've put it in my favorites, if you ever want to ask me for it again.

[TLM]

56. Oh now that's just pathetic, funk....

You said, "There's even an article in Salon where he talks about leading-on pacifists as part of "the game."

So where is Dean talking about leading on pacifists? You quote an advisor of one of Dean's opponents trying to claim Dean is inconsistent, pushing the BS idea that all Dean supporters are really hardcore anti-war folks who have been duped into thinking Dean is really anti-all war ever for any reason. The truth is that the real true anti-all war types went to Kucinich… Dean has the moderate folks who are anti-unjust wars and who want someone who would use war to defend this nation, but only justly and honestly.


"Dean is stirring up antiwar people," a senior advisor to one of his Democratic opponents says. "They are against all war, not just against war without U.N. support. When we do go to war, and Dean says he's with our troops and president in time of national crisis, the antiwar activists he's cultivated will turn on him quickly."



Then the Dean quote is about the attempt by his opponents to find some inconsistency where there is none... and THAT's what he says is part of the game, the fact people are madly trying to find some dirt on Dean. And your dishonest attempt to misrepresent that as Dean saying that “leading-on pacifists” is part of “the game.” I’m glad I called you on this, because this is easily one of the most disgusting and desperate misrepresentations I have seen from the bashers yet.

How insulting to DU readers that you think that we are so ignorant as to fall for this.

Dean says that's fine, and denies that there's any inconsistency. "I think people are madly trying to find one," he says. "It's part of the game."


Jesus f-ing christ how low will you people sink into the depths of blatant dishonesty to attack this man?

[Hawkeye-X]

72. Sorry even Nicholas_J is discredited

I've already placed him on my permanent ignore. His virulent anti-Dean links has already been debunked REPEATEDLY and yet he continues to Rove it away.

Hawkeye-X

[bearfartinthewoods]

64. what was the date on the iraq war resolution?

anyone? anyone?

[TLM]

66. It was just beforethe elections... in October of 2002 I think.

I'd have to look at the record for the exct date.

[bearfartinthewoods]

68. oh jeeze..yeah...how could i forget that!

duh on me. thanks

on edit...yep 10/10/02

[TLM]

74. And the attacks started march 20th 2003... I think

[DoveTurnedHawk]

5. While I Agree That the Amount of Political "Courage" Is Debatable

Please give the good doctor credit for speaking out for what is right, and for leading the way in many respects on this critique.

DTH

[DrFunkenstein]

11. While I Agree That It Was Right To Oppose the War

I was not thrilled by Dean's methods. He marginalized the other anti-war voices as unelectable, and actively tried to silence very real opposition to the rush to war by those who voted for the resolution.

But that is another story.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

13. Wasn't Really Following the Horse Race That Closely Back Then

So I can't really comment. :-)

DTH

[TLM]

33. That's a load of crap and you know it...

"He marginalized the other anti-war voices as unelectable, and actively tried to silence very real opposition to the rush to war by those who voted for the resolution."

Can you cite a quote or specific example of this... or should we just take your word for it?

[DrFunkenstein]

41. Here's The Link

http://www.ourfuture.org/projects/national_conference/2003/speeches/pres_candidates_8_6_.cfm

I would provide a quote, but my word processor won't open this up now for some reason.

Dean says he is the only viable candidate to vote "no" on the resolution. There are plenty of other sources, but this one came to mind first as the most ridiculous example.

[TLM]

69. No wonder you won't post a quote...

that would make it rather hard to lie about what was said, which was...

"I find it hard to believe that I'm the only major candidate running, who's in reasonably good shape in the polls, who voted “No” on the Iraq Resolution."

At this point was Kucinich doing well in the polls? Was he considered a major candidate? Can you show me a sudden drop in Kucinich's numbers as a result of Dean comment?

How about Graham?

Dean was simply stating a fact...


Now I would take issue with his use of the term "vote" because while Dean was the only top tier guy who was against the war, he did not vote on it and that is kind of misleading.

[IrateCitizen]

12. I don't necessarily agree with your post... BUT...

The one thing that perplexes me is how Howard Dean rose to the top of the pack as the "anti-war candidate", when there was another candidate who was actually doing the heavy lifting on the anti-war end and has ended up with nothing to show for it.

That candidate would be Dennis Kucinich, who along with Al Sharpton, is one of only two true "anti-war" candidates.

Dean deserves kudos for speaking out on this issue, but when you get down to it, his stance isn't too much different than most of the Senate Democrats who voted for the resolution but wanted UN approval.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Here's My Take

CMB, AS, and DK flat out opposed the war....

Mr.'s Dean, Lieberman, Gephardt, Edwards, Kerry, and Clark supported an invasion under the color of the United Nations....

There were subtle differences between these gentlemen with Lieberman and Gephardt more willing to support Bush's "go it alone" approach and Kerry, Dean, Clark wanting international cover and I use that word pointedly for the invasion but since a vote is binary Kerry gets slammed for voting for the resolution that was offered....


I'll ask this question again....

How does a unjust war become just?

Is it when the invaders are wearing U N helmets.

[TLM]

34. ARRRRGGGGHHH!! Beacuse Dean is not the anti-WAR candidate.

That was the label the right wing spin machine and the DLC tried to slap on him specifically to lump him in with guys like Kucinich who are anti-war.

Dean is anti-unjust war for no good reason.

People did not want someone who was 100% against the idea of any war period, like Kucinich. They wanted someone like Dean who was speaking out about why this war was unjustified and wrong, but who was not against using war to defend this nation.

So the talking heads tried to label Dean as an anti-war fringe leftist to marginalize him. And now that their labels didn’t stick they are trying to accuse Dean of shifting his policy or flip flopping.

[IrateCitizen]

40. Hey TLM, Dennis is not 100% anti-war, either

People did not want someone who was 100% against the idea of any war period, like Kucinich. They wanted someone like Dean who was speaking out about why this war was unjustified and wrong, but who was not against using war to defend this nation.

In case you weren't paying attention, one of the main reasons that Dennis Kucinich opposed the invasion of Iraq was because it was an action that would only make us less safe.

Additionally, the reason that Kucinich wants to cut Pentagon spending is not because he is completely against the use of force to defend the nation. It is, however, because he realizes that the Pentagon is a black hole for the budget, and it needs to be brought to account for its wasteful spending and corporate welfare projects. It is also because he recognizes the need for a basic paradigm shift away from militarism, something that requires someone to put their gun down first. Since the US is the biggest, baddest kid on the block -- he realizes that if we were to move away from militarism as a cornerstone of foreign policy, we might just be able to move a step closer to that peaceful world that so many politicians are fond of citing but so few are actually willing to take a risk trying to create.

In short, Dean's stance IS the more politically pragmatic. But Kucinich's is the more common-sense answer, and more likely to achieve lasting peace in the long run. Unfortunately, common sense is, as they say, anything but common. Hence, the overt reluctance of the American people to accept such a platform.

[TLM]

75. Really.. I thought Kucinich was a pacifist for religious reasons

I seem to recall reading something from him along those lines, but I could be wrong.

However it is correct to say that Kucinich is anti-war... while Dean is anti-unjust war.

[DrFunkenstein]

42. And Kerry Is Pro-Unjust War For No Good Reason?

Dean people switch the terms of the argument at their convenience.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

60. That's the charge that really gets me pissed

it is such an insult to what Kerry's whole fucking life has been about. HIS WHOLE G'DAMNED FUCKING HONORABLE LIFE!

[JohnKleeb]

78. I feel for you on that

Same way people do when they talk about Kucinich's past abortion view. I think its bs that Kerry is treated like a Quisling look I think that vote was fucked up too but I think Kerry really is good on a lot of issues too, I respect him and like him too. I still support Kucinich but Kerry is my #2 pick.

[TLM]

79. His whole life.... including the parts where

The part where he lied about doing two tours in nam for political gain?

The part where he lied about throwing his metals over the white house fence for political gain?

Or the part where he now hangs the metals he lied about throwing over the white house fence, up in his congressional office for political gain?

What about the part where he strutted in front of an aircraft carrier, using our soldiers as props for political gain... just like W.

You tell me what is honorable about getting 3 purple hearts in 4 months for minor injuries so he could transfer out of combat to a cushy admin job, while someone without Kerry's connections died in his place?

How about the part where he voted for 350 billion in tax cuts for the rich, or the No Child Left Behind Act, or the Patriot Act, or sat out the PBA ban vote... all for his own political gain, without one bit of regard for the damage it would do?

With Kerry, his career has always come before anything else...

[TLM]

76. No Kerry is Pro- War as long as it helps my career.

Kerry being for or against something is purely a function of how much that will help him in his next run for office.

[DianeK]

15. regardless to where your loyalties fall in this campaign...

i am personally offended when i see my state referred to as a 'nowhere state'. don't mean to start anything, i respect how you feel with regard to the candidate you support. vermont's done pretty well, thank you very much..wonder how many children in your state have health insurance..and is your state one of the 11 states in the union not facing bancruptcy? vermont is not facing that worry right now....people in our state who are committed to one another can now rest assured that if something happens to them their loved one will have all the legal protections they should have and there is nothing as beautiful that a bright, clear beautiful february morning in vermont
i mean no offense to you

[Cha]

20. I love Vermont and I've never even been there!

I started loving it when Jim Jeffords switched to Independent!

I work at a Co-op in upper STate New York and we get a lot of products from Vermont which we proudly sell.

I remember when Jeffords swithced and some of the zealots were talkin' about boycotting products from Vermont and I started ordering More products from Vermont! :kick:

We also get some Vermonters in who say "Go Guv" when I ask them about Dean!

Thanks, Diane!

[DrFunkenstein]

28. I'm Sorry, I Should Have Clarified That

As perceived nowhere state. Vermont has a reputation for being lovely and liberal, a fact that was hammered home in the movie The Legend of Billie Jean (it's Christian Slater's fixation).

But there is also the reality that there is NO urban centers in Vermont, and that many counties in other states have bigger populations. This is a real difference when it comes to education and health care in the big cities, not to mention a knowledge of the racial climate and minority concerns that accompany them.

So, while Vermont has a high standard of living (I believe), there are also issues about the scale and location of the state.

[TLM]

51. You're going to need a bigger shovel for that BS

"But there is also the reality that there is NO urban centers in Vermont, and that many counties in other states have bigger populations. This is a real difference when it comes to education and health care in the big cities,"

No it isn't... because the simply fact is that while VT is smaller, they also have a lot less money and a lot less resources. Yet under Dean's leadership one of the smallest and poorest states in the union was able to get health care for everybody, balance their budget, fund fantastic social programs, and boost the economy.

With the money and resources of the richest nation on earth, we can easily apply the model that functioned so well in Vermont. Sure other places are bigger with more people, and those bigger places also have more money because they are bigger and have more people.

Just like any recipe, if you need to make it feed more people, you simply add more of the ingredients in proportion.



"not to mention a knowledge of the racial climate and minority concerns that accompany them."

Dean was an ER doctor in New York in the Bronx... you'd be hard pressed to find a more in your face way to learn about problems in the minority communities first hand than working in an ER in the Bronx.

You want to talk to a guy who understands the violence in minority communities, talk to the guy who had the job of treating the bullet wounds. Is anybody else running who has had the experience of saving the life of a 9 year old victim of a gun shot to the chest?

You want to talk to someone who understands the problems of poor working families, minority or not, talk to the guy who donated his services as a medical doctor in a community center for folks who had no insurance and couldn't afford to pay for medical care for their sick kids.

Dean has the experience that counts... and no amount of sniping bullshit on your part will change that.

[w4rma]

16. To try and turn this into some type of opportunism is Orwellian, IMHO

IMHO, Vice President Al Gore probably dropped out of the presidential race because of Gore's disagreement with the DLC on the Iraq invasion. President Carter spoke very voiceferously against the Iraq invasion and was practically ignored by the corporate media. President Clinton supported the invasion behind the scenes (he advised Prime Minister Blair).

By going against the wishes of the DLC on this issue that the DLC considered to be of priority importance, Dean was considered by most folks to be killing his campaign. The DLC is powerful in the Democratic Party because of their ability to raise money from big corporations for Democrats willing to do what these big corporations ask of them.

Notice that the DLC has been running an anybody but Dean campaign ever since they began to see Dean as a threat. In fact, the DLC leadership is *still* running an anybody but Dean campaign, albeit a more behind the scenes one.

Summary of events as I understand them:
First the DLC attacked Dean directly. That weakened the DLC. Then the DLC let Lieberman attack Dean directly. That further weakened Lieberman's campaign for the presidency. Then Kerry stepped up his attacks on Dean. That may prove to weaken Kerry's candidacy further. Now Clark (with the support of the DLC) has entered the race at high national polling numbers due to his military rank (although it is my understanding that his polling numbers in early primary states, where candidates are best known, are behind Dean).

[blm]

24. Ted Rall said much the same. Is he Orwellian, too?

.

[w4rma]

25. I disagreed with that editorial by Ted Rall. Here was my response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=5835#5902

[blm]

87. And there are those of us who saw the same thing as Rall

months earlier. Rall was just validation from a columnist who bothered to investigate the truth about Dean for himself.

[Jacobin]

17. Of course, the flip side of that is that argument is that the candidates

who "had something to lose" according to your definition, are now defined by the fact that when they had something to lose (popularity for not joining in with the invaders) they were SPINELESS FUCKS.

Careful how you frame the debate. It might come back to haunt you. :-)

[DrFunkenstein]

21. Kerry's Stance Has Not Changed Since 1997

The threat of force, and actual use as last resort, is the only way to make Saddam comply with the peace agreements he had signed after the Gulf War for totally unfettered inspections.

Despite Dean's turns of whimsy regarding Biden-Lugar, Congress only got one resolution to vote for.

[Jacobin]

48. Too bad he didn't follow his position and gave Smirk unrestricted

authority to wage war.

He can spin it all he wants. I sent him emails and faxes last year before the vote.

All I got back was his form blabbering gibberish trying to ride the damn fence.

I swore I wouldn't forget it and would do everything in my tiny little voting power to make sure he never got to a higher office.

I HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN. THOUSANDS ARE DEAD BECAUSE HE SUPPORTED SMIRK.

HE IS A SPINELESS PRICK AND IS NOT FIT TO BE PRESIDENT.

[blm]

88. OMG!!! YOU MEAN WE BOMBED IRAN & SYRIA, TOO?

And we collapsed the UN? Wow...and it's all the fault of that "blank check" that those losers gave to Bush.

[Cha]

26. Jacobin...you say it so Well!

:)

[DrFunkenstein]

29. Spineless fucks?

Kind of like chickening out on "getting mouthy" with Kerry?

[Jacobin]

50. This invasion was completely and totally illegal and immoral

and Kerry voted for it.

He can try to spin it and condition it but he didn't stand up to Smirk. He is WORSE than the neo-cons, because he enabled them and is now trying to pretend that he didn't.

I've read ALL of his carefully crafted attempts to try to have it both ways.

He is, i will repeat, a SPINELESS FUCK.

[CMT]

22. I guess maybe it doesn't take much courage to be right

but I guess Dean had as much courage as Kucinich, Braun, Sharpton, Graham and all the others who were against the war--when a president with a 70% approval rating wanted the resolution passed. Too many in the Democratic party buckled under because they feared the GOP would call them soft on national security if they didn't vote for it. Dean may not have had the "courage" to be against it, but at least he had the intelligence to be against the war.

[Cha]

30. Dean was just being Dean! SAying what he believed...whether

or not that is courageous is in the eye of the beholder.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. This being the primary season, it is natural

that there is a lot of back and forth on this issue. Supporters of candidate "A" characterizing candidate "B"'s position in the worst possible way, and vice-versa.

But bottom-line: does anyone here really, honestly believe we would be occupying Iraq right now if we had a Democratic President?

[Cha]

32. No! this is bushwa all the way....we got snookered because

we didn't stand up when they overtook the goverment in the 2000 "coup"!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

36. It just keeps getting weaker.

I can't say I'm disappointed...we know your agenda.

[DrFunkenstein]

46. Lyndon LaRouche 2004!!!

:party:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

49. Exactly.

[TLM]

82. Are you serious... have I been wasting energy on a LaRouche disruptor?

[gully]

39. Great big yawn

:boring:

[DrFunkenstein]

45. Gosh, I Can't Believe It

A Dean supporter is unconvinced about his White Knight.

:wow:

[w4rma]

47. A Kerry supporter unconvinced about his White Knight? (n/t)

[DrFunkenstein]

52. I Notice Y'All Don't Seem To Be Able To Find

The pro-Kerry policy threads. Why is that I wonder?

[XanaDUer]

61. Because they cannot.

n/t.

[w4rma]

70. They sink like a stone due to lack of interest?

:evilgrin:
Kerry supporters are more interested in the Dean threads?
:evilgrin:

[blm]

89. No...lack of fairness and intellectual honesty.

.

[Upfront]

54. Yawn

[HFishbine]

62. A hell of a lot more courageous

than "I voted for the war, but what I really was doing was..." or "I voted for the Patriot Act, but what I really want is..."

Yes. Standing against the tide when it matters is courageous.

[stickdog]

65. NOBODY BUT DEAN WAS DISSING THE WAR ON A NATIONAL STAGE!

Kucinich and Sharpton (and Moseley-Braun?) were, but the word wasn't getting out because the media didn't take their candidacies seriously.

Meanwhile, Dean was dissing the idiotic and murderous war while Saddam's statue was being pulled down.

The only reason that doesn't count for something in your book is because you care more about Kerry's career than you do about the lives of American troops and innocent Iraqis.

[gully]

84. Applause!

:thumbsup:

[DrFunkenstein]

90. Is That Why Dean Refused To Attend Any Peace Rallies?

It's true, I care more about Kerry's career than I do about the deaths of troops and civilians. There are like fleas to me. Do you mourn the death of a flea? What really matters is that Kerry's career goes well, human life be damned.

Or maybe, just maybe, I think Kerry has a foreign policy and strategy against stateless terrorism that has ten times more depth and vision than any of the other candidates. Dean uses the IWR as a crutch, and as a substitute for a substantive foreign policy.

[Terran]

71. Baloney

I was openly supporting Dean at DU over a year ago because of the Vermont Civil Unions law (in fact, as far as I know, I was the first person here to even mention him as a possible candidate). To me it's just consistent with the man's integrity that he so vigorously opposed the invasion. It's not his raison d'etre.

And btw, your opening sentence is a real piece of bullshit--talk about poisoning the well, that was so blatant that anyone bothering read your entire post would be an idiot to give it any credence.

Dirk

[RetroLounge]

91. Yawn...

In the words of another DU'er, "This post ani't nothing but shit"