What Dean really said about Star Wars...the Truth shall set you free folks

[KaraokeKarlton]

There are some misleading threads and posts circulating around DU that claims that Howard Dean supports Star Wars. Those accusations are false and this thread is intended to show what Dean really said reagrding the subject.

Here is what he said:


Asked whether he supports or opposes a Bush plan to begin deploying a nascent missile defense in 2004, Dean accused the current administration of rushing an untested system into the field. But he added: "Effective missile defense will be an important part of a Dean administration's national and homeland security strategy."

Dean praised President Clinton's moves toward a ground-based missile defense for the United States, "on a timetable that would ensure the deployment would be capable of actually responding to an attack." He pledged to "integrate missile defense into an overall national and homeland security effort which provides real defense for Americans at home and our forces and friends and allies abroad."

Asked his position on an international ban on placing weapons in space, Dean declined to endorse the proposal.

"Technological development in space will continue and we should not reduce the technological advantages that our military enjoys by prohibiting the use of space for military activities," he wrote.

Currently, the U.S. military relies on satellites for intelligence, communications and other functions. Analysts say the Pentagon, under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, is exploring a military expansion in space, a shift in emphasis from past administrations.

Elaborating on Dean's position, spokesman Jay Carson said Wednesday that the candidate was concerned about broadly worded arms-control proposals that could curtail current space operations. But Carson acknowledged that Dean's positions on space and missile defense belied his reputation as a national security liberal.

"People have, since the beginning of the campaign, tried to pigeonhole him into an ideological box," Carson said. "None of these boxes actually fit who Gov. Dean is."


And here is the link to the actual article. You have to sign up to read it, though.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na...

[pruner]

1. please change the title of this thread to

Lies & the Lying DUers Who Tell Them – a Fair & Balanced Look at the Stop-Dean Movement

[slinkerwink]

2. looks like Dean prefers ground-based missiles to space-based missiles

[LuminousX]

4. but to be fair, he is keeping space-based options open

I actually admire him for that because we don't know what kind of threat we may be facing a decade from now.

Dean will also redirect NMD funds to nonproliferation efforts (you know, buying up uranium from Russia, etc.) and to Homeland Security.

[KaraokeKarlton]

6. Anyone who doesn't want to keep them open is insane

Like the article said...we depend on sattelites for intelligence and also weather to make sure we don't send gazillion dollar military ships and planes into foul weather.

Dean is definitely on the right side of this issue 100%.

[slinkerwink]

9. that's true

[bicentennial_baby]

10. Space Weapons are illegal

"Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies"

-snip-

" Article IV
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited."

http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm

[salin]

39. This IS an issue and warrants discussion.

But the framing that DUers have done tying "StarWars to Dean" - is intentionally deceptive - and has nothing to do with reality. I wish people would raise the real question in an article... (and it is legit) rather than seeing the opportunity to manufacture false propoganda.

[Patriot_Spear]

11. Which was well with the ABM treaty that Dumya broke...

I wish the anti-Dean people knew as mush as they think they do.

[slinkerwink]

3. kick

[slinkerwink]

5. another kick for the lying liars.

[Tyler Durden]

15. You know something?

You are a very smart person, and you write well, but you need to remember whose side you are on.

There is ONE side here.

And, if Dean ACTUALLY SAID "Effective missile defense will be an important part of a Dean administration's national and homeland security strategy.", then he needs to do some serious homework.

The ONLY effective missile defense (as proven time and time again) IS NO GOD DAMNED MISSILES.

The ex-Red Army Rocket Force is DEFUNCT. The Russians have NO MISSILE SUBS SEAWORTHY OR CRUISING AT THIS TIME. The missile defense is now and always has been a DEFENSE CONTRACTOR BOONDOGGLE.

I lived and worked at SPACE COMMAND HEADQUARTERS, DAHLGREN NAVAL SURFACE WEAPONS STATION, the HOME of "Star Wars." NOT ONE CIVVIE CONTRACTOR that I knew and talked to referred to this program as anything other than a joke, and a chance to make a ton of money off the government.

MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM, MY ASS. If Howard Dean said today, "You know, the first thing we're going to do is stop pretending we have to or are able to defend against missiles, so we'll junk the program." ...I WOULD DROP CLARK BASED ON THAT ALONE.

[KaraokeKarlton]

21. He's NOT talking about Star Wars, he's talking about ground missiles

which HAVE proven to be fairly effective.

[Paulie]

34. WHAT???? PROVEN FAIRLY EFFECTIVE?

All of the tests were FAKED. Most of the time, it never hit the target. The ONE TIME it actually hit the target was because they put a freaking HOMING DEVICE on the target, so the missile could FIND IT!

Try to justify it in your mind all you want, it's a total waste of money, and Dean is on the wrong side on this issue.

[salin]

40. what you are talking about is Star Wars (reagan, bush1, bush 2)

what KK is refering to is the systems (very different) pursued by Clinton - during which time funding was cut (and axed?) for Star Wars - the program was restarted and spending escalated under BUsh - and the faked out tests are related to the StarWars (bush program).

The other threads were started to intentionally blend the two into a single item - which they are not - to mislead Duers (and others).

[Paulie]

48. The Clinton Program

was nothing but computer simulations. He didn't have a program, just funded some "research".

Bottom line: These ABM systems are to protect us from WHAT, and from WHOM? This cold war mentality is going to get us killed. It's all about 4th generation warfare, and Iraq and Afganistan prove we STILL don't get it. Spending 900 Billion and we can't even control more than a single town in Afganistan, or have enough security that we don't have to hide our troops inside their compounds because some dude with a freaking RPG can take out one of our MBT's.

It's crazy.... 100 Billion trying to shoot down missiles from some less technological enemy... from no real threat.

[AP]

116. Furthermore, at the end of his administration he said the application of

the research wasn't passing the tests and that funding for those programs shouldn't continue, and that they'd have to go back to the drawing board.

When Bush became president, they changed the tests so that the systems couldn't fail, and then went forward with spending money on unworkable programs.

It seems to me that saying, "I'm going forward with what Clinton wanted" is a little misleading.

I invite people to correct me if my perception of what happened is wrong, but that's how I remember it.

I don't mind going back to the drawing board to come up with workable technology. I have faith that Americans can solve any technological conunbrum in a cheap, effective manner. But, I think going forward with unworkable programs just to pad the profits of a bunch of super-large corporations is wrong.

[KaraokeKarlton]

41. Patriot missiles did a pretty good job overall

They saved a lot of lives too. It wasn't "tests" in Israel and Saudi Arabia when defensive missiles protected people from Scuds.

[Paulie]

46. Another falsehood

The "Patriot" systems, originally called the SAM-D were designed as anti-aircraft missiles. Another system that went into production as one thing, then they jacked up the price, renamed it, gave it a new mission, when it was never tested to actually do the new mission!

Something interesting:

But analysis later showed that the Patriot was more a weapon of propaganda than protection, and that the televised explosions were mostly misses. Few Scuds were actually hit by Patriots, and most of those were merely deflected, their deadly warheads careening into residential neighborhoods or city streets.

The Patriot missile was originally conceived as an anti-aircraft weapon, and it proved to be largely incapable of intercepting targets that were smaller and faster than airplanes . A congressional report ultimately concluded that Patriots knocked downed only four Scuds.

[redqueen]

50. Thank You

I had heard this before but couldn't find the information to post it. I wanted to thank you for sharing this so people know how much we are LIED to in order to keep feeding the MIC.

PR rules the day, doesn't it?

[KaraokeKarlton]

51. anti-aircraft missiles are part of "missile defense" too ya know

Any missile used to shoot at someone or something trying to attack our side qualifies as missile defense.

I suppose you would prefer that we just not have the capabilities of defending ourselves from attack. Thankfully you are in the minority.

[redqueen]

55. No, tragically we are in the minority

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.

[KaraokeKarlton]

60. I'll stick with thankfully

while I sleep a little better at night knowing that if another country decides to fly on over and drop a bomb on my kids that before they succeed one of our missiles will blow them out of the sky.

[redqueen]

64. If you're one of the lucky ones, that is

Lucky in the sense of still having a job and a home to worry about since the war budget will eventually shut out our domestic spending. Then the right wing will have won.

I hope for your kids' sake that the free-trade and MIC policies of the 'democrats' of the last 20 years haven't turned this country into a cheap-labor haven like they seem to plan on doing.

[KaraokeKarlton]

73. How ironic. As a Kucinich supporter critical of Dean

don't you realize that by trying to harm Dean you are only helping push the very thing you claim to want to stop?

It's looking more and more like Dean is going to be the nominee every day. Every voter a Dean attacker turns off to being open to voting for Dean is another step Bush takes in accomplishing his goals.

Vote for who you want in the primaries and post all the good stuff about him you can find, but EVERYONE needs to stop trying to sabotage other candidates. We're ALL on the same damn team!

[redqueen]

76. Please, God... give me strength!

How am I 'trying to harm' Dean?! Give me a break!

I'm not trying to 'turn off' voters to Dean. I'm simply making observations... some will agree... some won't.

You seem to be saying that by giving voice to my concerns, that I'm somehow 'helping the enemy'.

Do you know who you sound like? Do you?!

[KaraokeKarlton]

84. I was probably unfair to you specifically

I apologize. I'm frustrated with all the attacks on Dean by supporters of other candidates. It wasn't right of me to imply that you personally were taking part in that. Sadly, many others are doing that, and I admittedly got caught up in how upset that leaves me feeling.

The fact that I had to start this thread to defend Dean against the false accusation that he supports Star Wars is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Again, I'm sorry for including you with those who are behaving badly, because you really haven't been attacking based on the posts I've read of yours so far.

[redqueen]

86. Awww, thanks for that

It really does make me feel better. I don't want to be perceived as attacking Dean... really I don't.

I understand what you mean about the attacks... clearly tying Dean to support for "Star Wars" is misleading and irresponsible. I expect it from mass media (hello? 2000? does anyone remember the constant lying?), but you're right that we should expect better from this board.

No apology is necessary, though... you haven't attacked me and I understand your frustration - trust me!

[KaraokeKarlton]

89. You're welcome

I went back and re-read what you wrote and I over reacted. In between our conversation I was reading other threads where Dean is being attacked and when I came back someone else had chafed my bum. I took it out on you and the apology was necessary.

[Paulie]

82. OH PLEASE!!!

It's more important you tell your kids to look both ways before they cross the street. Or wash their hands after handling poultry. Or not to sneeze in another persons face.

Those are the issues that are more likely going to kill your children.

And the Billions used for this "Missile Defense" means there are only thousands for searching cargo containers at our ports, that's "worth it"? Or that there isn't affordable healthcare for your children, so a bad hamburger your child ate, infected with E. Coli O157:H7, and your kids die from hemolytic uremic syndrome....

Seriously, worry about the REAL threats (like raw chicken!).

Russia/China, more cold war mentality. We don't live in those days anymore. We live in times where asymetric warfare is against groups, not STATES. It's about needing cooperation with STATES, to handle these things as they should be, as LAW ENFORCEMENT issues.

[KaraokeKarlton]

87. Actually, I live in Vermont

So thanks to Dean my family already has affordable health care. So would you if he gets elected. But since he will deal with national defense in the same way 99.9% of other politicians would, it sounds like you don't want to see him elected.

[Paulie]

Sorry, you're incorrect.

"Missile Defense" is about defense FROM missiles, not missiles used in "defense". Missiles are offensive weapons, you have to find your target, the target doesn't come to you. Think linebacker....

de·fense n.

1) The act of defending against attack, danger, or injury.
2) A means or method of defending or protecting.

[KaraokeKarlton]

94. Oh just stop it, will you please

I know it means defense against missiles. And if you pick up an incoming on radar and send a fighter plane to get a visual and the pilot shoots a heat seeking missle at the missile being fired at something, that qualifies too. A missile on the ground (like Patriots) are also equipped with radar to pick up the coordinates and path of said missile. No one is claiming the current systems are perfect, but ground based systems like this should be researched because at some point there WILL be the technology available to do this effectively and it's something that if we possessed would eventually be used. There are a lot of countries in this world and it's not always going to be peaceful even if we get to a point where there is world peace. As long as there are at least two humans on this planet there is going to be fighting. That's the reality.

[Paulie]

98. No that's fear

The boogey man is gonna get you SOMEDAY, better spend some Billions and pretend some missile is going to shoot another missile, and hope to god it doesn't rain it's payload over 10 times the area, including your bedroom. The only safe way to do it is to take it out at launch, and that's going to require PREEMPTIVE attacks. See the slippery slope yet? We're already on it! We need the world to stop it, it's not US vs THEM, it's Humanity against extinction.

As I said, be scared of the things that matter. This threat isn't even on the RADAR.

[KaraokeKarlton]

101. I'm not scared of anything, actually

I'm just realistic.

[Paulie]

105. Maybe

I'm a realist, and spending billions when those dollars are desperately need in other places is wrong. "More of the same", just in new packaging.

It's sad.... I weep for humanity, I really do.

[redqueen]

103. Thank you!!!!

Beautiful post. Beautiful.

[MadHound]

107. Please get your definitions straight

Any missle used to shoot at someone or something trying to attack our side IS NOT "missle defense".

A missle is an unmanned rocket carrying a payload of explosives. It can be guided, it is self propelled, and it can achieve
orbital status. A plane is manned, has wings, cannot achieve orbital status, and may carry small missles. Anti-aircraft systems have become very effective in doing what they were designed for, shooting down planes. Anti missle systems, whether space or ground based are very ineffective, and if a hit is achieved, it is by sheer luck. Most honest military experts realize that pursuing an anti-missle program, whether ground or space based(esp. space based) is the height of folly, one which sees the US continuing to throw good money after bad.

Meanwhile, as we continue to pursue this folly, our troops are getting killed by that height of technological sophistication, the armed donkey cart

The reason that the Soviet Union collapsed was that it spent it's wealth on it's military. Do we wish to continue down the same path? We spend $11,000 per second, each and every day on our militaryAnd this is just the overt funds, Lord knows how much we spend on top of that covertly? Don't you find that a bit excessive? Here are our hard earned tax dollars on these boondoggle defense projects, that take up over fifty percent of the national budget, yet we get outraged at having to spend eight tenths of one percent of the national budget on welfare. Something is seriously wrong with a country when it values the death and destruction of vague "others" over taking care of it's own poor and destitute.

[KaraokeKarlton]

119. Dean didn't make any mention of the word "anti-missile"

To me the term "missile defense" can mean either defense against missiles or defense using missiles. The article makes absolutely no distinction between the two. Maybe I'm just a stickler for detail, but that's the way I see it.

[truthspeaker]

47. not really

The "success" of Patriot missiles in GW1 was defense industry propaganda.

But I still like Dean's statement. I, too, think there is a place in US defense policy for an effective missile defense system - when one is designed, tested, and demonstrated to be effective. We don't have one yet.

What Dean does not support (as many anti-Deans have alleged) is Bush's policy of spending money to deploy a system that doesn't work.

[Paulie]

49. But what will it protect us FROM

There is no threat of this kind.

The threat is bombs/missiles in containers coming into our ports. That's more likely than some nomadic tribe comes along and developing some MRBM or even ICBM's.

Even spending research money on this is whacked. It's a SOLUTION LOOKING FOR A PROBLEM!!!

[truthspeaker]

53. PART OF a defense policy

Russia still has ICBMs. China has a few. North Korea could, possibly, shoot one over here. Sure, the chances are slim. You're right about the other threats being greater. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be researched. Dean isn't making this a corner stone of his policy. He was asked about missile defense, and he gave his position.

[Patriot_Spear]

71. That's a LIE- MIT proved it and the DoD admitted it...

propaganda.

[KaraokeKarlton]

74. My cousin fought in the first Iraq war

And one of the SCUDS hit by a Patriot was heading right towards him. It doesn't matter what evidence or studies are cited to me, I'm going to hold the same view simply because there's a personal story behind it.

[Patriot_Spear]

75. Okay by me...

It doesn't make the myth any more real.

Peace.

[Cheswick2.0]

61. Paulie, I have a great deal of admiration for your passion on this issue

Please join some of us in the lounge for the FEEL THE LUUUUUVVVV THREAD. You are garanteed to lower your blood presure and view the world in a new light.....come on now

[Cheswick2.0]

59. SW, you are a tireless advocate for your candidate and I appreciate your

loyalty. Come join us in the lounge for the FEEL THE LOVE THREAD.

[Spentastic]

7. I'm British and just hope anyone beats Bush

But there are none so blind as those that will not see.

"Asked his position on an international ban on placing weapons in space"

Basically, he supports militarising space. Weapons are not satellites. He either misunderstood the question or he's got a position that does not preclude constructing military platforms.

[PVnRT]

12. There's more to the military than weapons

Intelligence gathering is crucial to military operations, thus the need for satellites. That is the point Dean was trying to make, I believe.

[Spentastic]

13. Yes but he didn't make it did he.

"Weapons" was the phrase used.

He could quite happily have said.

"I do not think that placing weapons in space is a good idea but I believe we must maintain our current non weapons based military technology".

But he didn't did he?

[redqueen]

18. We Americans are too cowed

Weapons in space? SURE! Gotta keep them options open.

Disgusting.

Anyone here know anyting at all about the hazards of space junk now? Well let's just make it worse then.

Way to lead, Dean.

[TLM]

44. Define weapons...

Do spy satellites or communications satellites count as weapons?

How about a orbital platform for military craft? Would that be a weapon?

The idea of banning anything from space that could be considered a weapon is stupid.

And the VAST majority of space junk up there, is not from weapons... so that argument is rather moot.

[redqueen]

52. Weapons

Obviously spy and communications satellites aren't 'weapons' in the traditional sense.

Launching platforms, though? Hell yes, that's a weapon.

And no, it's not 'stupid' to ban weapons in space. It's reasonable. Eventually we're going to have to stop spending so much of our budget planning and preparing for war. You CANNOT simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. You CANNOT.

And of course the majority isn't from weapons. Most plans for space weaponization is still in the early stages. What a silly comment!

The point is, don't make it WORSE!

[TLM]

72. So you agree with Dean...

That we should not support a ban that could list spy and communications satellites as weapons.

"Launching platforms, though? Hell yes, that's a weapon."

And if the platform was used for refueling orbital craft or storing supplies?

My point is that any ban needs to be specific, not just a ban on "weapons."

That was Dean's point.

[redqueen]

77. Yes, actually

Usually, I do. For clarification, though, please see post #68.

[PVnRT]

30. Dean didn't say weapons

"Technological development in space will continue and we should not reduce the technological advantages that our military enjoys by prohibiting the use of space for military activities," he wrote.

That is directly out of the article. Military activities, not weapons. Please try again.

[TLM]

45. As a matter of fact, his campaign did make that clear.

"Elaborating on Dean's position, spokesman Jay Carson said Wednesday that the candidate was concerned about broadly worded arms-control proposals that could curtail current space operations."

[KaraokeKarlton]

17. He declined to support the ban for one reason and one reason only

He doesn't know all the details of what the ban would entail. Anyone who would support anything without knowing the full ramifications of it is an idiot, and Dean is no idiot.

[Spentastic]

22. Er?

Okey doke. That sounds awfully Bushist and Global warming to me.

Dean is without doubt no idiot. But he could of and should have handled this better!

[BeFree]

31. Cheap shots, spentastic

Cheap and unconvincing. I would have expected better.
If anything your comments just make Dean sound better.

We need to reign in defense projects, on that most of us agree.
Dean, in handling this correctly, has represented most Americans thoughts on this matter and kept from looking anti-defense.

Your littering aside, Dean has impressed me once again.

[slinkerwink]

35. he impressed me also on this issue

[seventhson]

8. DUHHH Ummm, Okay -- I Spoze I'll just have to vote for BUSH then

What is youyr friggin' POINT?

We all know that Dean is not Dennis Kucinich.

We ALL know he has to walk a fairly middle road to win this election.

And missiles and space are RIGHT NOW part of the mix.

Dean MUST remain strong on defense to win this election as well. He cannot let the Bushies target him as a weak=kneed wuss who will sell out the country to threats from abroad (primarily China and N. Korea at this point)

So why are you bothering with this crud?

[w13rd0]

14. I think the original poster...

...is making the case that Dean favors a sensible approach, keeping options open, not a boondoggle giveaway to campaign contributors (the Bush faith-based missle defense plan).

[slinkerwink]

19. which is what bothers me about AP's post is that he portrays Dean

as being in love with the faith-based missile defenese plan, when it's apparent that Dean favors a sensible approach, and keeping his options open in case of a national emergency.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[w13rd0]

36. See, I wouldn't know...

...as a confirmed Kool-Aid drinking Dean cultist, my ignore list is long. I have neither the patience nor the termperment to deal with those sorts. If I wanted willfull distortions and negativism, I'd go join Bush's blog and get it strait from the horse's ass...

[KaraokeKarlton]

42. Oh w13rdo you just nearly made me pee myself!

LMAO!

[AP]

66. Sounds like McCarthyism.

You should spend more time rebutting, and less time "saving."

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[redqueen]

78. Just the quote and a link would be fine.

That huge screen capture is messing up the page.

Besides, does that really support your argument here?

[Patriot_Spear]

80. It clarifies the intention of the poster.

Yes- it does. AP has made it clear that his one goal is to attack Dean. Can you really expect an honset dialogue with this knowledge?

[redqueen]

91. Ehhh

Well, to me, AP stating that every statement Dean makes asks to be criticized, while a bit over the top, does't equate to him making attacking Dean his one goal. But then again, I don't consider critiquing one's statements to be attacking them.

[AP]

93. thank you for the sanity.

It would probably be instructive to read that whole thread.

I'm not surprised my critics provide screen shots instead of links.

Context is everything.

[Patriot_Spear]

104. Bias is not an intellectually honest starting point.

That's my view.

[AP]

110. Then you should probably stop displaying it so blatantly?

Where is my bias?

Is it biased to look crticially at a candidates words and actions?

[Patriot_Spear]

100. So 'attack everything he says' is an Okay starting point? Not a chance..

You don't drink from a poisoned well.

[AP]

117. If by "attack" you mean, "think criticially, argue, and support those...

...arguments with textual references", then I think, yes that's OK.

[AP]

92. Poster's intention: look beyond the surface of Dean's statements.

I guess that's something lots of people here think of as heresy, but I'm making no apologies for it.

My one goal is not to attack Dean, which isn't even what your screen shot implies. It's to think critically about what the candidates say and to hold them to their words.

So shoot me.

[Patriot_Spear]

102. Your opinion is pre-made- you do not offer an honest view.

You admit your opinion is pre-disposed against Dean. I'm sorry but that makes your view practically worthless.

[redqueen]

106. Misunderstanding

I think the comment from the screen shot you posted really shows that if any bias is there, it's that AP expects Dean's statements to require further scrutiny. While that is indeed technically a bias, it's not the same thing as AP saying that he disagrees with all Dean's statements - rather that all his statements need critiquing.

Biases aren't inherently bad things. Usually they're nothing more than the brain's habitual seeking out of patterns so they can develop a reasonable expectation of what the future holds. This bias just shows that AP may give extra scrutiny to Dean's statements, not that AP thinks all Dean's statements are bad, wrong, misleading, etc.

Surely you see the difference. Do you?

[Patriot_Spear]

109. Read it again "...almost every Dean statement asks to be critisized."

If that's not bias, then the definition needs to be re-written.

I hold no personal animosity, but I can see an obvious agenda in his attacks on Dean.

[AP]

113. Proof that that's true: dozens of 100+ post threads on what Dean says.

And I don't start them all and I don't contributed to them all. So it's not just me.

[AP]

114. Bias: what about the people who post everything Dean says in attempt

to puff him up. They can have the run of the board, but I can't be critical of him?

[AP]

111. again, thank you.

[redqueen]

115. My pleasure.

Just trying to further understanding.

I really do see that while you are critical you're not attacking, so I commend you on your critical thinking! We need more of that - LOTS MORE!

[AP]

97. I cut and paste the Political Wire story.

Your problem is with them.

[Rose Siding]

20. This is a defense to the charge that Dean

"supports Star Wars". It's cropped up in a few threads.

[Rose Siding]

16. I found some interesting stuff about his defense spending plan

I suspected that he'd use the military budget for energy research but hadn't seen it written before. He refers to alt energy as part of "nat'l security".

I had the same thought when I heard him speak of int'l Aids treatment funding as "nat'l securtity". I'd dearly LOVE to see that in the defense budget.

snip>
Redirect military spending rather than reduce defense budget
On military spending, Dean has rightfully aroused anger and skepticism from progressives with his claims that he will not reduce military spending. It appears, however, that these statements are a political dodge of sorts to avoid media characterizations of Dean as the "antiwar candidate" and "weak on national security." Dean has told audiences that he would not reduce military spending but rather "redirect" it toward the development and implementation of renewable energy technology (an issue he ties to defense), homeland security measures to fund local first responders, inspect container ships and protect nuclear sites (a move that Alexander Cockburn himself recently called on Bush to make), and the purchase of old nuclear materials in Russia.
Source: Nico Pitney, CommonDreams.org, "Progressive Case for Dean" Aug 11, 2003

Shift $1B per year from missile defense to threat reduction
A Dean administration would be guided by the notion that Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) and related programs with are a more urgent priority than National Missile Defense and would transfer $1 billion per year from the over $8 billion ballistic missile defense budget to CTR and related programs. As President, Howard Dean will increase our intelligence, police and military special forces capabilities abroad to thwart and disrupt terrorist operations.
Source: Campaign website, DeanForAmerica.com Jul 2, 2003

Focus Pentagon budget on military personnel's needs
I do not favor decreasing the Pentagon budget, but do support restructuring the way money is spent to ensure the most effective use of taxpayers' dollars possible. I am deeply committed to maintaining a high quality professional force established during the Clinton years. I also believe much more must be done to provide for the well-being of our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen and their families.
Source: Campaign website, DeanForAmerica.com, "DOD Budget" Jul 2, 2003

Focus war budget on protecting vital infrastructure
We must stop shortchanging homeland defense. We need a war budget here at home, with a much more substantial investment in helping Russia to safeguard nuclear materials.
Source: DeanForAmerica.com campaign website, "National Security" Jun 17, 2003

http://www.issues2002.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Homeland_Sec...

This is from Dean's page on the "On The Issues" site

http://www.issues2002.org/Howard_Dean_VoteMatch.htm

[Gman]

23. So Dean favors the mythical weapon that hits a bullet with a bullet

or does he? Does Dean ever give a straight answer about anything?

This is a great nonanswer-answer:

"Effective missile defense will be an important part of a Dean administration's national and homeland security strategy."

And this guy thinks he'll win in November??? They'll tear his ass up on this.

[seventhson]

27. Whaaaah???

That is a perfectly fine answer and trying to take it out of context doen't even work.



Game Over.

Try Again

[Rose Siding]

37. Sometimes a second read through

helps pick up details we miss the first time.

[salin]

43. nice. Did you read the next sentence?

It was about picking up the Clinton era defense systems (not starwars). There seems to be an attempt to throw together missle defense as all = starwars (the reagan era fantasy revived by bushjr), even though Dean specifically refers to the Clinton program which was different (done while Clinton was cutting (and trying to ax) the StarWars program through defunding.)

There IS an issue in this article - but it isn't about star wars (which he states opposition to) or clinton era, land based missle defense (again distinct from star wars)... it is about an international ban on the use of space for military technology. He is against the ban, Kerry is for it.

Clark, surprisingly, answered the survey (which the story is about) very similarly to Dean - except NOT answering the space ban question:

Clark did not answer the space question. He opposed the Bush missile defense plan but indicated he could support programs to protect the country against ballistic missiles.

If we want to be serious - we could get into some healthy discussions about these different approaches and efforts. But representing select candidates (esp when their answers are very close to one's own candidates) positions... for the sake of smear (oh lets link "Star Wars to Dean") is really out of line.

[no name no slogan]

67. You don't get it Gman

FIRST Dean gives an answer that leaves all but the Deaniacs shaking their heads and going "wha...????"

Then Trippi (or some other minion) posts what the Dr. REALLY said on the Blog for America!

Get with the program, dude! You don't expect the candidate to give a STRAIGHT answer on something as simple as "would you militarize space?", would you?

[salin]

88. actually - I don't follow the deanblog - just went to the original article

and found it said something VERY DIFFERENT than the misleading item title that linked a major candidate to a hotbutton issue. I don't think it behooves us to perpetuate propoganda.

There were issues to be discussed there - but that is NOT how the arguement was being framed and or discussed. That is my frustration. And I got that not by reading a candidate's blog. But thanks for the nice big generalization.

[seventhson]

24. Sorry, Kind of... I thought this was an attack on Dean Post

It read to me like it in some ways, because the militariuzation of space is a hot issue and not, to me, a good thing at all.

But never mind.

Dean sounds reasonable at this point.

I see the attacks now in the other threads so Jeeez these guys are nasty relentless.

[slinkerwink]

26. it's called desperation

[KaraokeKarlton]

25. Notice how Dean said NOTHING about missiles in space?

He agreed with Clinton's moves to ground missiles. His comments about the military in space specifically said "military activities" which doesn't necessarily mean missiles. It means intelligence gathering, weather prediction, navigation for starters. Besides, Dean has already stated that he opposes Star Wars.

He's just not willing to say he supports a ban without knowing the full ramifications of such a ban would have on our current military activities in space.

[seventhson]

32. I misread your intent

Maybe next time you can explain a little better.

[KaraokeKarlton]

38. That wasn't directed at you seventhson

I was actually responding to something kinda buried in another post and wanted to point it out more prominently in hopes of getting it neutralized.

I know you misunderstood. I went back and edited the original post to explain the intention of this thread. That should help avoid anyone from misunderstanding.

[Eloriel]

28. THANk you!!! N/T

[KaraokeKarlton]

33. You're welcome

I didn't want to have to "Poop" all over GD, and I know my gov and that what was being said was a load of crap. All it took was two minutes of my time to get the truth. Too bad the one who made the first post didn't bother to do the same.

[seventhson]

56. Thanks for editing your text. Much clearer that this is to dispel the LIES

being told aboput Dean

If we thought the Al Gore lies told were bad, this is going to be unbelievable and this is GROUND ZERO for falsehoods since DU is the enemy of the BFEE

Put on your flak jackets and kevlar folks, pile into the shelter and plug in. We are going into cyberspace -- a matrix of BFEE lies.

And we have to stop them like a virus or like with an EMP weapon before they can destory DU-Zion.

Strap on. Plug In. Focus!!!

Feel the zings before they are released.

ROVE is source of all evil and it all emanates from Rove.

But he has clones and collaborators as nasty as him.

Star wars is lie one for today.

So is "the repubs WANT Dean" - Bring it on, bucko

So is Dean =McGovern

They are making a list and checking it twice and there will be a daily serving of lies here and everywhere in the media.

We need to identify and shoot them down. But even better we need to anticipate them BEFORE they re unleashed.

[KaraokeKarlton]

63. You're welcome

I was in such a hurry to get the truth out that I forgot to point out why I was posting.

[redqueen]

54. Dean is a friend to the MIC

"Technological development in space will continue and we should not reduce the technological advantages that our military enjoys by prohibiting the use of space for military activities,"...

This is no surprise.

What's the big uproar about? That he favors space-based 'weapons' in general, as opposed to space-based missiles, specifically? What a crock.

He favors militarization over non-militarization.

Way to cloud the issue.

Just another way they can make him seem not-so-different from *.

[KaraokeKarlton]

57. Kindly cite where Dean said he favors "space based weapons"

Go back and read the article again and copy and paste the quote he made that says he favors space weapons specifically.

I won't hold my breath for a response.

[redqueen]

65. Sorry

I thought the part where he said we should use space to continue to further our military advantage kind of hinted at 'weapons'.

Whether or not he favors putting 'weapons' in space or not, he clearly favors militarizing it. TO me, that makes him a friend of the MIC.

[KaraokeKarlton]

83. Set your feelings about weapons aside for a minute

Because that's the only way you're going to be able to look at this objectively.

Space is already "militarized" and it has been eversince space exploration began. Satellites are about the most important tool for gathering intelligence necessary for protecting ourselves and our allies. They give us advance warning of any attacks. They warn of weather conditions. They help us watch what countries like North Korea and Iran are up to with their nuclear programs enough to alert us when there's something we need to look closer at. They allow us to have more news choices through Satellite television. They allow us the technology of satellite telephone and internet. The military is not all about weapons and war. It's about being aware of threats and things that could bring harm upon our people. If the military did not have an interest in such things as I've mentioned the scientific aspect of space would not get any funding for environmental research and the like. If people were to ever successfully ban all militarization of space there would be no way to observe environmental issues using those same tools. These things go hand in hand and serve a very important purpose in our best interests. It's reasonable and respectable to oppose the ides of missiles and weapons in space at this point in time. There is no need for them. At the same time, we can't see into the future and have no idea how things will look in 20 or 50 years on this issue. There is no reason why we shouldn't continue research and information gathering regarding all potential uses for space. That can be done without actually building and testing any systems. This is not a black and white issue and everyone needs to take that into consideration.

[redqueen]

85. I understand, I really do

When you talk about the militarization of space due to space satellites, I truly understand where you're coming from.

But try to see it from my point of view... don't you think there's quite a large difference between satellites used for gathering intelligence and launching platforms to launch god knows what? Satellites are crucial to acquiring intelligence ... but launching platforms?

Dean needs to be very specific on this to put people's fears to rest. But I don't expect him to. I don't think he's particularly worried about the 'far left' which is what I'm perceived as being part of. He seems to be going after more moderate votes so I really don't know what the threat is in pointing out where I disagree with his views and why.

[KaraokeKarlton]

99. He doesn't want to put missiles in space

He wouldn't voice support for the ban because he doesn't know what the full ramifications of supporting it would be. Go back and look at what the campaign said about why he didn't support the ban. There's a good chance that there is wording in the ban that would adversely affect those non-weapon military activities that we depend on.

Dean would never, in a million years support putting weapons in space unless other countries were doing it and the US had to do it for our own protection. He certainly wouldn't set or begin such a precedent. He's too cheap.

[redqueen]

108. HAHAHA - good point!

I would hope that his conservative fiscal nature would prevent him from any huge spending programs to develop weapons in space.

[seventhson]

58. Another false meme

I would think that Kucinich above all others would understand how critical it is NOT to let Bush get reelected.

Dean is a friend of the people NOT the corporations of death.

[redqueen]

68. I think it's critical that bush not get re-elected

I don't see how hashing out Dean's actual positions contributes to Bush's chances of being elected.

Dean has said he's closer to AIPAC. He has said he approved of the war against Afghanistan. He has indicated that he had no strong feelings either way about Iran Contra.

IMO he's squarely in the camp of the MIC. I'd love to be wrong. I'd love to see hard evidence that he's not. I don't hold out much hope of seeing it, though. I've seen too much evidence to the contrary.

But again, this really doesn't help bush at all. Those that vote Republican will vote Republican, and Dean's pro-military stance will probably help him with 'moderate' and centrist Democrats.

I am really baffled at how outraged Dean's supporters get when you try to discuss anything critical of Dean. Just ignoring issues like this will not make them go away. Better that we get it sorted now.

Such as the "Star Wars" issue. Clearly that's a lie. Getting that out in the open was good. So what's the big deal?

[RetroLounge]

62. I think Dean prefers "The Empire Strikes Back"

eom

[Scott Lee]

70. Dean folks: Bookmark this thread so you can repel the endless

river of sludge that will be flung at Dean on this theme from here to forever. I have zero doubt that this issue will join the slimeball meme-stream that includes "draft dodger", "Bush lite", "never against the war" ad pukeium.

[redqueen]

79. I'll second that

But please, in the interest of fairness... would you add that the real need for these counter-arguments is going to be AFTER the primaries are over?!

[genius]

81. Great, he wants to give health care and education funds to something

that doesn't work.

[redqueen]

90. He has different priorities

Clearly he's not aiming at getting our votes, genius. By that I mean the 'far left' who would rather see the military budget cut cut cut and the domestic programs given much more funding.

It could be that more people in this country are more in line with his priorities -- and if so, then so. Many people disagree with Kucinich's priorities and that's their right. I don't agree with it any more than you do but that's what this country's all about. If some want to have wars to raid other country's natural resources, then they'll vote for Bush and that will be that. I don't think that's the case though. He had to steal it last time, and even then he had to paint himself as a moderate, 'compassionate conservative' to get close enough to even steal it!

Dean's WAAAAY better than Bush, just as ALL our candidates are.

I think you agree with me, though, that there is a great amount of untapped voters who are waiting for a candidate to speak to them. We'll just have to wait and see how many there are, and whether or not they're even paying attention!

Whoever wins, liberals and Democrats everywhere will be more involved than ever before, and that's a good thing.

[Paulie]

96. What's funny...

is I'm not ANTI-Dean, I'm anti-more-of-the-same. If we looks like the republicans, then you're back to being "The Same" in the minds of the voters.

No more wishy-washy democrats. We have to STAND for SOMETHING.

Bill Clinton was the master of using the republican platform against them, and the republicans did everything they could to destroy him for it. Even though it was THEIR AGENDA! But it wasn't them doing it.

The right of center is now called LIBERAL. At some point you're going to have to look where we are, and decide. Do we want to go down that path. We're a heartbeat from facism. We either stop the runaway cart NOW, or we live with it crashing into the stream.

[redqueen]

112. I hear ya

I'm with you 100%... I'm sick of being 'us too, just not as much'. I want something DIFFERENT. Something that WORKS.

You're spot on about how far to the right we've gone. That's one reason I spend every second I can convincing people to vote for Kucinich!

Check out my thread on the Welfare State and chime in there... would love to have your input!

[bigtree]

95. The need for a national missile defense is a Republican lie

"Effective missile defense will be an important part of a Dean administration's national and homeland security strategy."

Dean praised President Clinton's moves toward a ground-based missile defense for the United States, "on a timetable that would ensure the deployment would be capable of actually responding to an attack."

The star-wars money in the Clinton years was approved by a republican congress in an omnibus defense bill over the objections of the Clinton admin. Less money was appropriated than they wanted, keeping the program in research limbo.

In September 2000, the PNAC drafted a report entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century."

The conservative foundation- funded report was authored by Bill Kristol, Bruce Jackson, Gary Schmitt, John Bolton and others. Bolton, now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was Senior Vice President of the American Enterprise Institute.

The report called for ". . . significant, separate allocation of forces and budgetary resources over the next two decades for missile defense” and claimed that despite the "residue of investments first made in the mid- and late 1980s; over the past decade, the pace of innovation within the Pentagon had slowed measurably." And that, "without the driving challenge of the Soviet military threat, efforts at innovation had lacked urgency."

The PNAC report asserted that "while long-range precision strikes will certainly play an increasingly large role in U.S. military operations, American forces must remain deployed abroad, in large numbers for decades and that U.S. forces will continue to operate many, if not most, of today’s weapons systems for a decade or more."

The PNAC document encouraged the military to “develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.”

The paper claimed that, “Potential rivals such as China were anxious to exploit these technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea were rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they sought to dominate. Also that, information and other new technologies – as well as widespread technological and weapons proliferation – were creating a ‘dynamic’ that might threaten America’s ability to exercise its ‘dominant’ military power.”

“The (Clinton) administration’s stewardship of the nation’s deterrent capability has been described by Congress as “erosion by design,” the group chided.

In response to the call from some in the Clinton-era’s Republican Congress for the rapid acceleration of national missile defense development, “leading to deployment of a defense system as soon as possible,” The United Missile Defense Company (UMDC) was formed in 1997 as a joint venture; equally owned by Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and TRW.

In fiscal years 1996 through 1998, the Republican congress authorized and appropriated a total of $1,174 million more for missile defense than President Clinton’s budget requested for those years.

On the 25th of April 1997 the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization announced that two contracts for the concept definition study phase of the National Missile Defense (NMD) Lead Systems Integrator were awarded to United Missile Defense Company, Bethesda, MD, and Boeing North American Inc., Downey, CA.

Despite President Clinton’s opposition, a multimillion dollar contract was signed in 1998 for a “Space-Based Laser Readiness Demonstrator” with Lockheed Martin, TRW, and Boeing as the contractors.

In an article for the Washington Monthly in the summer of 2000, Stephen Hadley cited a 1999 National Intelligence Estimate, which claimed that "Iraq could test a North Korean-type ICBM that could deliver a several hundred-kilogram payload to the United States in the last half of the next decade (calendar year 2000) depending on the level of foreign assistance."

Only one country hostile to America, North Korea, possesses missiles that could reach any part of the U.S., and that missile (the Taepo-Dong 2) is currently untested.

But Hadley concluded that, " Only against ballistic missiles does the United States remain vulnerable through continued adherence to the ABM Treaty.

Also that , interim “quick fixes” offering even the most limited capability against the ballistic missile threat would provide a deterrent to countries now seeking these weapons; the so-called "scarecrow defense." In this way, Hadley argued, the United States would have an “emergency deployment option” in case of crisis. The way around amending the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty would be to declare the system "temporary".

Anything to get the industry in the Pentagon chow line. Its clear that no matter what the obstacles or objections, Hadley would insist that the constructs of a new missile defense regime were essential to the nation's defense.

All of this advocacy contradicts a previous report by the CIA, which stated that it was not necessary to rapidly deploy a missile defense shield.

The threat of an attack by "rogue" nations like North Korea is the primary reason given for building a missile defense. The current Taepo-dong 1 missile can only carry a 1,000-kilogram nuclear bomb for about 2,500 kilometers, not enough to reach the US. It could also carry lighter biological or chemical weapons for 4,100 kilometers, but it would still be about 400 kilometers short of the two closest parts of America - the tip of Alaska and the Hawaii islands.

Similarity, the Taepo-dong 2 missile, when fully operational is only expected to barely reach Alaska.

The General Accounting Office cautions, in a 40-page report released in Sept. 2003, that the Bush administration's push to deploy a $22 billion missile defense system by this time next year could lead to unforeseen cost increases and technical failures that will have to be fixed before it can hope to stop enemy warheads.

The GAO report said the Pentagon was combining 10 crucial technologies into a missile defense system without knowing if they can handle the task.

The Pentagon's 2004 budget request includes $8.5 billion for unclassified space programs, an increase of about $600 million more than 2003, including funding increases for work on an advanced network of laser-based communications satellites.

The request also includes $274 million for a space-based radar system which the U.S. Air Force hopes to launch in 2012 to track moving ground targets at all times regardless of weather conditions. That marked a sharp rise from $48 million in 2003.

Defense officials plan to spend about $4.4 billion in the next five years on the program, which will provide data to both military and intelligence agencies.

The GAO report faults the stepped-up schedule proposed by President Bush for premature integration. "As a result, there is greater likelihood that critical technologies will not work as intended in planned flight tests," the GAO said, which could force the Pentagon to spend more funds than expected or "accept a less capable system".

Despite the GAO report, the Defense Department has budgeted approximately $10 billion a year over the next five years to fund the missile defense program, and congressional appropriators approved $9.1billion to be spent next year on the system.

Of course, there exists the possibility that President Bush actually assembled the Pentagon’s recent pack of aerospace executives to run his foreign policy in his own anticipation of a credible 'space threat', to deter a future assault on our nation's security.

What foresight he must have had from his Texas ranch. What of it, if executives and shareholders in the space industry happen to rape of our treasury to fulfill their own hunger to dominate military and commercial space?

There seems to be no limit to aerospace ambitions. The administration is pushing ahead with the expansion of the military space program, despite the limitations of the nation’s weak economy and the adoption of many other costly ‘priorities’ for the armed forces.

- mod, these are excerpts from my yet unpublished book 'Power Of Mischief"

[redqueen]

118. Looks like it should be required reading

for poli-sci students!