Human Rights Watch Vindicates Howard Dean on Iraq

[Hawkeye-X]

The United States and Britain had no justification for invading Iraq
either on the grounds of alleged threats from illicit weapons and
terrorism, or as a humanitarian mission, an international civil rights
group said yesterday.

The failure to find Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction has
left President George Bush and Tony Blair claiming that the invasion was on humanitarian grounds, said a hard-hitting annual report of Human Rights Watch. It said that the West had done nothing when Saddam
massacred Kurds and Shias in the past, and there was no evidence of any continuing mass killings at the start of the war in March 2003.

The report claimed that the US and British occupation forces had
"sidelined human rights... as a matter of secondary importance. The rule of law has not arrived and Iraq is still beset by the legacy of human rights abuses of the former government, as well as new ones that have emerged under the occupation." The reasons given for war by Mr Bush and Mr Blair - WMD and Saddam's alleged links with international terrorism - had not been proved, said Kenneth Roth, executive director of the organisation.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=485143

[Nazgul35]

1. don't expect mush of a response to this....

stories of Dean being proved right, while numerous, run counter to the electoral plans of some of the candidates running for office....so their supporters will ignore what they can't argue against!

Either that, or they will bring up Dean's scream again!

[DemBones DemBones]

7. How long will Dean supporters ignore that Kucinich has been

consistently opposed to the war ?

Dennis Kucinich never favored Biden-Lugar, as Dean did.

Dennis Kucinich never said war would be OK if the UN said OK, as Dean did.

Dennis Kucinich never supported the occupation, as Dean continues to do.

Dennis Kucinich voted against IWR (Dean didn't have to vote) and organized the sizable anti-war vote in the House.

Dennis Kucinich also participated in anti-war marches. Dean didn't.

Why do Dean supporters ignore the evidence? Dean used the anti-war movement for votes but is not committed to it in any way.

[Nazgul35]

10. Who's ignoring Dennis?

just to get things straight, here is exactly what I said:

stories of Dean being proved right, while numerous, run counter to the electoral plans of some of the candidates running for office....so their supporters will ignore what they can't argue against!

I never excluded Kucinich by my statement...so why the strong reaction?

Your claim that I am ignoring Kucinich is incorrect, since I never stated that Dean was the only person who was correct...

In fact my claim was directed at those who continue to support candidates who have positions that run counter to those who were against the war.....which would have included not only Kucinich and his supporters, but Sharpton, Mosley-Braun and Clark supporters! Should I now chastise you for leaving those candidates out? I don't think so!

I think you might have over reacted here!

[DemBones DemBones]

16. By not including Kucinich, you are ignoring him, as you well know.

I have mentioned Sharpton in this thread; CMB is no longer a candidate, and I don't consider Clark to have been a consistent opponent of the war.

Dean has used the anti-war movement without being committed to it. If being pro-war had been more popular with Dems, I have no doubt he would have been pro-war.

Dean has repeatedly claimed to be the only anti-war candidate, which is a lie. The media has colluded in this lie, of course. Dennis Kucinich has spoken to him about it and Dean promised to stop but continues to tell the lie. Lying once is bad enough but to give your word that you won't do it again and then continue is worse.

Dean also tries to claim his health insurance plan is the same as Dennis Kucinich's universal health care plan. It's not. and he knows it.

Dean now recognizes NAFTA is a problem -- he used to support it -- but still supports keeping it and somehow fixing it. Dennis Kucinich knows NAFTA should be gotten rid of because it can't be fixed. (As long as we're in WTO, we have to support NAFTA and can't change it.)

[Nazgul35]

19. I don't even know where to begin!

The topic of the thread was about Dean, and I was responding to the topic....if you want to make a similar claim that the rights group's report supports Kucinich, I would post a supportive argument there as well....

Have you been reading Nedra Pickler? Because your argument is very similar to hers! It would go something like this:

Supporters of Governor Dean said that the report confirming that lack of human rights abuses supports the Governor's contention that the Iraq War was unjustified, but what they failed to mention was that Dennis Kucinich made the same claims.

If you can not see what is wrong with that line of thinking than I don't know what more to say...

As to this:

Dean has used the anti-war movement without being committed to it. If being pro-war had been more popular with Dems, I have no doubt he would have been pro-war.

You're kidding me with this...right? Please tell me you are...because if you are not, than I have to tell you that at the time that Dean began to speak out against the war, popular opinion in the Dem Party was in fact in support of the war!

And then there is this:

Dean has repeatedly claimed to be the only anti-war candidate, which is a lie. The media has colluded in this lie, of course. Dennis Kucinich has spoken to him about it and Dean promised to stop but continues to tell the lie. Lying once is bad enough but to give your word that you won't do it again and then continue is worse.

Did you not see the last three debates, Dean has clearly made reference to the fact that Kucinich also was anti-war.....what I think may disturb you more, and should be apparent after two elections, is that Kucinich (sadly) is not a major candidate in this race.....for whatever reasons that may be, that is not the Governor's fault!

Dean also tries to claim his health insurance plan is the same as Dennis Kucinich's universal health care plan. It's not. and he knows it.

Would you please site this? As a supporter of Dean I am very aware that his plan is not the same as Kucinich's...and I have watched the debates and nowhere have I seen Dean even try to do this, in fact, in several debates he attack Kucinich's plan as not practicle....

As far as your last claim, that is simply a difference on trade policy and I am not sure how exactly taking a different position harms Kucinich or doesn't include him, which was the original title of your post....

[jobycom]

13. Yeah, let's make this an infighting issue rather proof against Bush

That will help defeat Bush.

There are those who believe Dean is right on most things but don't support him for other reasons.

This report proves that those of us who did not believe a word Bush said were right, and that those who did believe some of what Bush said were fooled. Dean deserves cudos for being right. Most DUers deserve cudos for being right. Most of us would make lousy presidents. Dean might make a good president, might not-- that's the debate. Not whether he was right or wrong, not whether other candidates are trying to beat him (and I still don't understand why that's considered wrong, since that is their job, and if they can beat him, then he can't beat Bush).

[Nazgul35]

17. I agree with your premise...

but I don't think you meant to state it that way...

you said:

This report proves that those of us who did not believe a word Bush said were right, and that those who did believe some of what Bush said were fooled.

This goes directly to who would make a good president as you said above...and by your statement, this would exclude Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman from consideration....

And it is not wrong to challenge the candidates but it is to use the tactics employed by the right wing that comes very close to questioning a persons loyalty or their concern for the welfare of other human beings, which is what these arguments that have been used against the anti-war candidates do...

also you stated:

...(and I still don't understand why that's considered wrong, since that is their job, and if they can beat him, then he can't beat Bush).

perhaps you are not aware that during the time when Dean was polling very high and it looked like Kerry's campaign was dead, some of the supporters of the campaigns not in the lead used the opposite of your argument to suggest that a candidate who could not win the primary would, in fact do better in the general election.

I am sure that you posted counter to these arguments than as you do today.....plus, no one here has made that argument here, so I'm not entirely clear as to why you chose to bring it up?

Perhaps the point of the whole thread is that those who supported the IWR vote needs to admit that they were wrong and that their decision to trust President Bush was a serious lapse in judgment that they will endeavor to never repeat again, than maybe people would feel a little more comfortable about their candidacies....

[jobycom]

22. I meant what I said and I said what I meant

(Sorry, Horton is one of my favorite characters, so I wanted to start that way!)

I didn't say being fooled by Bush made a person unqualified to be president. I'd prefer to think they saw through him, but when the president holds classified meetings with you and tells you that Iraq has the capability to explode a nuke in NYC right now, and intelligence backs that up, you listen. And when he swears to you that he will only use the Resolution as a tool to pressure Hussein to comply, you listen. Dean was not in the loop. I do not know how he would have voted if he had been in the loop and had had the evidence presented to him that way. From what I've seen of him, he would have gone along, but I could be wrong-- just my impression.

A vote for the Resolution was not a vote for war. There was never a vote for war. Those who voted for the Resolution were wrong to trust Bush, but they were voting to unite behind a threat, not to invade. They knew it was an option, even possible, but not that it was certain.

Lieberman supported the invasion whole-heartedly, so I do oppose him. Edwards and Kerry have both proven to me that they aren't the type who support such invasions, even if they made a mistake here.

As for the second statement, that if Dean can't beat Kerry, he can't beat Bush, I stick to it. I can understand the argument (and it is similar to ones I've made) that what excites the Democratic base is not what excites the general population these days, and thus what it takes to win the primaries may be the opposite of what it takes to win an election. That was true, though judging from recent polls that may have changed (not based on candidates, but on what issues Democrats are voting on).

But that doesn't make the obverse true. It doesn't mean that because a candidate loses a primary he is the best candidate to win the election. My point is on strategy-- if Dean can't fight off attacks from his own party to win the nomination, then he won't be able to fend off the far more extreme slanders Bush will create to win in November. Kerry is playing softball. Bush will play a game that has no name, no rules, and plenty of body blows. I've never thought Dean could handle that.

And for the record, I've been in the undecided camp from the beginning, and have not been opposed to Dean any more than any other choice, and everything I've said is based on my analysis, not on any campaign strategy.

[kayob1]

2. Forget about that!!

What about my taxes!! He's gonna raise my taxes!!

:)

[DemBones DemBones]

9. How is Dean going to manage the federal budget if he

can't even manage his own campaign finances? How did his campaign go from a $41 million war chest raised in 2003 to virtually broke in January 2004?

[Nazgul35]

12. Is he in debt?

If the answer to that is no, than I guess you are wrong....

That has to be one of the silliest arguments I have heard on here!

Oh, and by the way, I don't recall Dean ever once saying that Trippi was going to be his Treasury Secretary...

:shrug:

But thanks for playing.....

:eyes:

[DemBones DemBones]

18. Ask his 500 staffers how they feel about being asked to work w/o pay

for two weeks SO DEAN DOESN'T HAVE TO GO INTO DEBT.

I think that's a rotten thing to do to his staff. With his assets, the man could get a loan rather than make his staffers support the campaign on their backs.

(I am remembering a Vermont resident who called C-SPAN earlier this week and talked about the poor quality of mental health care in Vermont; she alleged that Dean balanced his budget on the back of her schizophrenic son and others who didn't receive needed care due to Dean's "fiscal conservatism." I thought she might be exaggerating. But considering recent disclosures about hsi finances, I think she probably was telling it like it is.)

John Kerry was mocked by Dean supporters and Dean himself, as I recall it, for taking out a mortgage on his house to help finance his campaign. Anyone who's worked in the financial sector, as Dean has, or is merely the frugal New Englander that Dean pretends to be, knows that it is better to take out a loan for auch purposes than to spend money from principal.

Sorry, saying that he never said Trippi would be Treasury Secretary is extremely lame.

What kind of manager never looks at the books? (Hint: not a good one.)

Dean has lost ALL his credibility on economic issues.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jobycom]

15. Maybe my spouse was running his finances?

Never mind, personal matter. :-)

[Bozola]

3. But at least Iraq is safer now that Saddam has been captured...

What WAS Dean thinking of? Iraq is a happy place now without Saddam, full of laughter, joy, and happiness. Why, from the impression I get from the local news sources (admittedly we're on the otherside of the world) it's more fun than Disneyland!

Those 512,000 troops that Cheney wants stationed there are going to have the time of their lives!

"The story of what we've done in the postwar period is remarkable...It is a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day."
-Rep. lil'Georgie Nethercutt, R-Wash.,


BTW....where is ol'Chuckles Hussein, these days?

[DemBones DemBones]

4. Of course this vindicates Dennis Kucinich as well, and DK did not

support Biden-Lugar. Dean supported Biden-Lugar, would have supported preemptive invasion of Iraq if the UN had given their OK.

DK also organized the anti-IWR vote in the House and is the only candidate who had to vote on IWR (Dean, Clark, and Sharpton did not have to vote) and voted against it.

It's not Dean's fault that the media sized upon him as "the" anti-war candidate but he has attempted to make it seem that he is the only candidate who opposed the war, and that is untrue. Both Kucinich and Sharpton opposed the war and continue to oppose it.

DK opposes the occupation and I believe Sharpton does as well. Why does Dean support the occupation/ continuing war?

[Bombtrack]

5. What'll never be proved right is his misleading about his rivals positions

namely Kerry and Edwards, on the war, and that they never had much different of a position on it, only that he capitalized on peoples ignorance about the congressional resolution and what it entailed and why it was needed for something Dean supported, the forming of an international coallition

All three of them supported the same course of action the whole time

[Nazgul35]

14. what the IWR was

was a ducking of the Congresses Institutional responsibility to vote for War....nothing more!

The fact is that they had Bush over the barrel with regards to the War but a large majority of Dems lacked the political will to do anything about it....and that lack of will is what is at issue!

Where it not for Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton, god only knows what the current crop of front runners would tell us....

Personally, I think that once Kerry has the nomination, he will revert to form...which will spell disaster for us next Fall! After all he does have a record of holding his finger to the wind around election time and caving when standing up may threaten that.....

[Bombtrack]

21. Then why didn't Dean take a position on it BEFORE it was passed

only after it was passed and he saw that certain segments of the left didn't understand or care that it was necessary to try and build an international coallition, and not necessary itself at all for Bush to invade, did he say he would have voted against it.

He knows he has had the same position on Kerry and Edwards on how to handle Iraq, and the same opposition to invasion without the UN/NATO before an imminent threat was obvious, but he has built his campaign on selling himself and smearing his opponents as what he and they are not

[paulk]

6. I read the article you linked to

and I was unable to find Howard Dean's name mentioned in it.

[Hawkeye-X]

8. The statements

just vindicates what Dean has been saying all along.

Hawkeye-X

[DemBones DemBones]

11. They don't vindicate Biden-Lugar, which Dean supported.

Human Rights Watch actually vindicates the anti-war stand taken by Dennis Kucinich, not the waffling done by Howard Dean.