Dean on Iraq $87 billion

[ModerateMiddle]

I wrote this here when he said it, but I couldn't find the quote. Here's the quote:

When asked last month about Bush’s request for $87 billion, Howard Dean, the Democratic front-runner, said, “I’m not in Congress. That’s not a decision that I make.... I’m running for president. I’ll tell you what I’m going to do, but I’m not going to tell you how I face an issue that is not of my making.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/980348.asp?0cv=CB20

ok, so he's ammended his position somewhat:

But more recently Dean has said he would oppose the $87 billion unless Bush and Congress pay for it by repealing a portion of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003.

Dean has said Bush should persuade foreign governments to contribute more troops to maintain order in Iraq. He has also stressed the need for continued U.S. presence.

“We cannot lose the peace in Iraq, so we are going to have stay there. We’re stuck there,” he told reporters last month. “We cannot pull all the U.S. troops out of Iraq. We have to stay there for the duration.”

[mbali]

1. How odd

the war itself "wasn't of his making." Nor was the Patriot Act. Nor were any number of other issues that Congress has addressed. But that didn't stop Dean from criticizing Congress for their decisions.

Why the sudden reticence to comment on the $87 billion? Could it be that, when asked that question, the "right" answer wasn't as clearcut as some of the issues others that Dean has commented on, thus he felt the need to duck the question altogether?

And, why is he NOW commenting on the $87 billion? Has it become of his making in the last month?

[genius]

19. DEan said he would authorize the $87 billion in the debate last week

Kucinich drilled him on this during an interchange in the debate and Dean was clear that he would authorize it. This wishy-washyness is typical of Dean.

[Meshuga]

2. Would Dean stop opposing it?

Let's say Bush and Congress pay for the $87 billion by repealing a portion of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. Would Dean stop opposing it?

Dean supporters: do you guys have the details on Dean's position in this issue? I can't praise him, neutral, or criticize him without knowing his real position. Thanks!

[RogueTrooper]

3. From the article

"But more recently Dean has said he would oppose the $87 billion unless Bush and Congress pay for it by repealing a portion of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003"

Does that answer your question?

[ModerateMiddle]

5. Not really

because it certainly looks as if the R-controlled congress isn't going to allow anything other than an up or down vote on this measure. So how would Dr. Dean vote? Would he vote no, because it is going to pass anyway, and just like the Dems "no" votes on the R-inspired, labor-ugly Homeland Security vote in 2002 was used against them at every turn, so will "no" votes on the $87 billion.

How would Dr. Dean vote, if he doesn't get to craft the solution himself? If he has to vote on what is placed in front of him.

[RogueTrooper]

8. I was answering MrWiggles question

which did include a role-back of the tax cut.

As to the question "how would Dean vote without the included tax cut". My guess is that he would vote no. But that is only a guess.

[Meshuga]

14. I know that part...

I guess I wasn't clear with my questions. My fault... :-)

I see that repealing a portion of the tax cuts is one of Dean's criterias for supporting the $87 billion. But is that it? Does he have any other? Am I right in saying that Dean's position is the same as Gephardt with the exception that Dean wants to be fiscally responsible?

[CMT]

9. No he wouldn't vote for it

unless Congress pays for it by repealing the tax cut. So since they aren't going to do it he wouldn't support it. You have to understand that some people believe that the US has a moral obligation now towards re-building Iraq since we were the ones who went in there and destroyed it. So Dean is saying he would support it if we paid for it by repealing some of the tax cuts, but since we aren't he won't. It isn't that hard to understand.

[xJlM]

4. On CNN's slimy debate he supported it

Just another flip flop. Nothing to be concerned about for a member of the Dean Army, just more of the same old.

[Larkspur]

6. From what I remember from the CNN debate, Dean qualified his support for

the $87 billion with Bush repealing all or part of the tax cuts. That seems to be Dean's policy on that money.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

7. Got a quote from Dean on that ? I don't have the transcript

And I have to say that other than Dennis, all the Dems have danced on this one a bit, not knowing exactly where the money is going.

[ModerateMiddle]

11. I'm not sure if the transcript

(for which I don't have the link handy, but it has been posted here recently) will have the comment about the $87 billion that Dean made after the conversation "moved on". In that, he said he would support it IF it was paid for by curbing some of the tax cuts.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

13. What's wrong with that?

I think Dean's position on this is not so different than the other Dems (save Lieberman). We can't just give $87 billion and not know where it's going or how it will be paid for.

[ModerateMiddle]

16. I didn't say there was anyting "wrong" with it

I just pointed out that is what he said.

[sfecap]

20. Transcript:

(snip)

KUCINICH: I would like to say that it would have been good if Senator Kerry and Congressman Gephardt, both have been articulate in criticizing the president, had actually voted against the resolution that took us to war.

It'll be a year anniversary on October 10th that the bill came to the House.

Now, we had a chance to tell the president no. We had a chance to cancel unilateralism and preemption by saying no. And while it's very well and good to stand here and say we should have done that, I submit that the reason, going back to Jeff Greenfield's question, the reason why people don't trust the Democrats is because our Democratic leadership stood with the president in the Rose Garden and now stands on this stage and attacks him for the war.

I'm saying that war was wrong from the beginning. We should get out of Iraq now, because we're standing there on a lie, we should bring our troops home, that's the bottom line.

Mr. Dean has said that he believes -- he says what he believes. I want to ask him, do you believe in spending $87 billion to keep our troops in Iraq? Because I don't. Do you?

DEAN: I get to answer the question?

WOODRUFF: Yes.

DEAN: I believe if the president is serious about supporting our troops in Iraq that he has to say where he's going to get the money from, and that means he's got to get rid of $87 billion worth of the tax cuts that went to Ken Lay and his friends at Enron.

KUCINICH: Would you fund keep the troops in Iraq?

DEAN: Yes.

KUCINICH: You would?

DEAN: If the president was willing to pay for it.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/09/se.03.html

[Cha]

28. Thank you...the transcript always helps when people are

trying to distort what Dean has to say!

[michaud]

31. Dean is correct

#1 we cannot leave iraq in the dust......that would be immoral.

#2 Bush has to pay for it because it was his War!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Go Dean Go

[ModerateMiddle]

10. further quotes on the $87 from the Dean campaign

The Dean campaign explains Dean’s not taking a position on the supplemental in a somewhat more creative way than the Clark campaign. Dean embed Felix Schein says the campaign’s rationale for refusing to even speculate on how Dean would vote were he serving in Congress is: the vote might well have been avoided had Dean been in Congress when the war was first discussed, and thus it is better to take no position than to speculate about a single vote.

That said, Schein notes, the campaign does say that the $87 billion needs to come from the President’s tax cut and that it should only be approved with a sound rebuilding plan in place.

Again, Dean sets himself up as the ONLY one who is capable of doing anything. Does Dr. Dean REALLY believe that had he been in Congress, the IWR would NOT have passed?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/924508.asp

(sigh - edited to add link)

[blm]

12. Bull...when IWR passed Dean was running AS a centrist who supported

Biden-Lugar version of the IWR. Ted Rall pegged him when he said Dean was reading the way the wind was blowing for his Iraq stance.

Dean had even said in the past that he would beat Bush by running to his right on Homeland Security.

[w4rma]

15. As usual, you do not back yourself up, blm. Anyway when IWR passed

DES MOINES, Oct. 5 -- Three prospective Democratic presidential candidates put their party's divisions over President Bush's policy on Iraq on display here tonight, disagreeing over the terms under which the country should be prepared to go to war to dislodge Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power.

Speaking at a fundraising dinner filled with activists wary about going to war again in the Persian Gulf again, Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.), and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean highlight the spectrum of opinion within the Democratic Party as lawmakers in Washington prepare to vote on a resolution authorizing war.

Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran, said the United States should be willing to hold Hussein accountable and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, but only if there is clear international support.

"I'd be willing to be the first to put my uniform back on and go and defend this country," Kerry said. "But I don't think we should pretend that protecting the security of our nation is defined by turning our back on a century of efforts by patriots and presidents of both parties to build an international structure of law and live by higher standards."

Dean, whose advocacy of liberal domestic policies has struck a chord among grass-roots activists here, offered the sharpest dissent. He contended that Bush has yet to make a compelling case to justify going to war.

"The greatest fear I have about Iraq is not just that we will engage in unwise conduct and send our children to die without having an adequate explanation from the president of the United States," he said. "The greater fear I have is the president has never said what the truth is, which is if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years to build that democracy and the president must tell us that before we go."
…
http://www.dre-mfa.gov.ir/eng/iraq/iraqanalysis_27.html

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. A wimp avoiding confrontation of an issue

I can't believe anyone running for president can make such a shrinking, shirking response to such a critical question.
It shows 2 things:
1. He is not informed enough to provide an answer so he snaps back with the defensive "it's not my problem" type of answer. Of course, he came up with an answer later when his advisors told him that presidents are supposed to have answers to such questions.
2. He's a belligerent "know it all". But we already knew that.

Dean scares me because this shows yet again he has the wrong temperment and instinct to be president and he is simply not smart enough nor properly informed on ALL of the issues.

BTW Can you IMAGINE CLINTON saying this? :shrug:

[mbali]

18. Not having a vote in Congress

certainly hasn't stopped Gov. Dean from commenting on all sorts of matters that come before Congress. He's been second-guessing Senators and Congresspersons to his heart's content on just about everything they do, so, I wasn't the least bit impressed - or fooled - by his answer on this one.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. Indeed, he's even claimed that he voted No on the Iraq resolution

"I'm the only major candidate running, who's in reasonably good shape in the polls, who voted No on the Iraq Resolution."
-Gov. Dean in a speech to the America's Future Campaign, 6/23/03
http://www.ourfuture.org/docUploads/dean_062303_131529.pdf

[sfecap]

22. You can do better.

A slip of the tongue.

How many time you gonna post this?

Ridiculous.

[mbali]

23. The issue

is not his slip of the tongue but his obvious willingness to express an opinion about a matter before Congress that was "not of his making."

I have yet to hear any Dean supporter explain why he refused to express an opinion about the $87 billion because, since he's not in Congress, the issue is not of his making, but he was so eager to speak out about the Iraq War, the Patriot Act and other matters that were "not of his making."

[sfecap]

25. You're right...

Gov. Dean shouldn't have an opinion on anything. That should be left solely for Senators and Congresspeople.

He should know better....:eyes:

[JohnKleeb]

26. but he basically implied that he was the only one to oppose the invasion

That at least why is why this to a degree pisses me off.

[mbali]

27. Still waiting for a coherent answer . . .

to my question about why Dean claimed he didn't need to respond to questions about the $87 billion because he wasn't in Congress, while he pontificates at length about other issues before Congress.

Attempts to change the subject notwithstanding, Dean has every right to have an opinion. But once he gives it, he shouldn't whine when he is questioned about why he only seems to have an opinion when it's convenient for him.

[killbotfactory]

30. This might help

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2003/10/index.html#001690

[JohnKleeb]

24. I am not gonna yell or curse well I may curse because thats the way I am

Reason is that its kind of an insult and yes I know Fean is a Kerry supporter to Kucinich and I think it is, I saw it disregarded as a careless error. Hey in the end I will support Dean if hes the nominee but I dont like that comment. Dean cant act as if he was all alone in his opposition to the war especially when we have men like Dennis Kucinich out there who btw is and always has been the only presidential candiate to vote against the war resolution and patriot act, we dont know how Dean would have voted, I would have of coursed like it if all had voted against both.

[sandnsea]

29. Typical wishy-washy Howard the Coward response

I'm not surprised. And even when he came up with 'an answer', it really isn't anything concrete. I didn't see one place where he says clearly whether he would have voted yes or no. That's all he ever does on anything. Broad vague comments that don't pin him down on anything. Hey! THAT'S why his supporters always say you can't pin him down. It's because he doesn't really take a stand so they really CAN'T pin him down!