|
Edited on Sun Jul-27-03 10:03 PM by TLM
then you pretend it never happened and your sources were not shot down. "btw...The UN was involved," Not really, Bush only had to try one more time then declare that all means had been exhausted, since the authorization Kerry supported left that to Bush's discretion, not congress'. But hey I guess that having to go make a presentation tot he UN is pretty much the same as having to convince the UN and get their support, right? "weapons inspectors went back in," As a prerequisite or as an afterthought? "Bush had his dog and pony show at the UN, the war is contained to Iraq....and if Biden-Lugar had passed Bush would STILL be in Iraq." And he'd be under the oversight of the UN on a mission to disarm Iraq, not to take over the fucking country. Why is this so hard for you to understand the difference? Or is it that admitting the difference might rob you of yet another bullshit attack on Dean and force you to look at Kerry’s support for Bush war for what it really was? http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/20626605.html/
But the Democratic candidates aren't that far apart on the Iraq issue, a professor says.
Anti-war Democrats have cheered presidential candidate Howard Dean, but some campaign observers say the former Vermont governor's position on Iraq isn't that different from the rivals he criticizes.
"The positions of the Democratic candidates are not really that far apart," said University of Iowa political science professor Peverill Squire, referring to Dean, U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt, and Sens. John Edwards, John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman. "Most leave themselves a good deal of wiggle room."<<<<
Yeah wiggle room, as I said nothing at all in that piece that is even close to substantive. It is nothing but an aside in an op ed piece. Finding someone else who is spewing the same line of bullshit you are, doesn’t change the fact it is bullshit. Also that piece, as many of the pieces you site, are addressing the anti-WAR stance of candidates, and saying Dean is not that anti-war. That's true, Dean is not anti-war... he's anti-war for no damn good reason.
Who?s the Real Peace Candidate?
With Kucinich in, the anti-war vote is up for grabs
by Doug Ireland
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/14/news-ireland.php
>>>
Kucinich is not alone in competing for the anti-war vote. There is, of course, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who scores points with anti-war audiences by scolding his opponents for voting the blank check. Yet Dean’s shifting positions on Iraq leave one wondering if they aren’t propelled more by his desire to position himself against the rest of the field than by deep analysis and conviction. Last fall, Dean limited his criticisms to the need for the war to be waged by an international coalition with U.N. approval — without taking on the pernicious new Bush doctrine of “preventive” first strikes. Dubya’s chilling repetitions of America’s right to go it alone in invading Iraq (or, for that matter, any other sovereign country) — in other words, the right to wage aggressive war without any overt act by the “enemy” as a casus belli — make Dean’s silence on first-strike problematic.This is flat out bullshit, as we both know Dean has made many statements about his position on Bush's preemptive policy. I think one of them was quoted in this very thread. Here is another that Dean wrote in response to the bullshit hit piece you cite at the end of this post... Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong by Howard Dean
When Congress approved the President’s authorization to go to war in Iraq – no matter how well-intentioned – it was giving the green light to the President to set his Doctrine of preemptive war in motion. It now appears that Iraq was just the first step. Already, the Bush Administration is apparently eyeing Syria and Iran as the next countries on its target list. The Bush Doctrine must be stopped here.
Many in Congress who voted for this resolution should have known better. On September 23, 2002, Al Gore cautioned in his speech in San Francisco that “if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.” And that is why it was such a big mistake for Congress to allow the president to set this dangerous precedent.
Too much is at stake. We have taken decades of consensus on the conduct of foreign policy – bipartisan consensus in the United States and consensus among our allies in the world community – and turned it on its head. It could well take decades to repair the damage this President and his cohort of right-wing ideological advisors have done to our standing in the international community.
Theirs is a radical view of our role in the world. The President who campaigned on a platform of a humble foreign policy has instead begun implementing a foreign policy characterized by dominance, arrogance and intimidation. The tidal wave of support and goodwill that engulfed us after the tragedy of 9/11 has dried up and been replaced by undercurrents of distrust, skepticism and hostility by many who had been among our closest allies.
This unilateral approach to foreign policy is a disaster. All of the challenges facing the United States – from winning the war on terror and containing weapons of mass destruction to building an open world economy and protecting the global environment – can only be met by working with our allies. A renegade, go-it-alone approach will be doomed to failure, because these challenges know no boundaries.
The largest, most sophisticated military in the history of the world cannot eliminate the threat of sleeper terrorist cells. That task requires the highest level of intelligence cooperation with our allies.
Even the largest, most sophisticated military in the history of the world cannot be expected to go to war against every evil dictator who may possess chemical weapons. This calls for an aggressive and effective diplomatic effort, conducted in full cooperation with a united international community, and preferably with the backing of the multilateral institutions we helped to build for just this purpose. This challenge requires treaties – such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – that this Administration has sometimes treated cavalierly. In any case, war should be a last resort or an option to be used in the face of an imminent threat.
The UN Charter specifically protects the right of self-defense against armed attack, and most agree that action against imminent threat is also justified. As President – as has been the case with all previous presidents – I would not hesitate to use our military might to protect our people or our nation from an imminent threat. But you will not find a Dean Administration turning to the option of force in the first instance as this President does.
The immediate task at hand of the next president will be to begin rebuilding our relationships with our allies so that we can work in concert on tackling these challenges.
The next president will need to undo the work of this band of radicals currently controlling our foreign policy – who view the Middle East as a laboratory for their experiments in democracy-building, where no such traditions exist. Their approach will drastically change the view that the world has had of the United States.
Our nation should be viewed as a moral and just power, a power that seeks to do good, one that has led by example and with a spirit of generosity, and one that works with the world community in advancing the ideals of human dignity and rule of law across the globe.
The people of this country must understand that this Administration has a far different concept of the role of America in the world. This concept involves imposing our will on sovereign nations. This concept involves dismantling the multilateral institutions that we have spent decades building. And this concept involves distorting the rule of law to suit their narrow purposes. When did we become a nation of fear and anxiety when we were once known the world around as a land of hope and liberty?
On day one of a Dean Presidency, I will reverse this attitude. I will tear up the Bush Doctrine. And I will steer us back into the company of the community of nations where we will exercise moral leadership once again.
And not only will I seek to heal the divisions this President has caused in the world community, but I would also begin the process of healing the divisions he has exploited here at home.
This President shamelessly divides us from one another. He divides us by race – as he did when he claimed that the University of Michigan uses quotas in its law school admissions. He divides us by class by rewarding his campaign donors with enormous tax cuts while the rest of us are deprived of affordable health care, prescription drugs for our seniors, and good schools for our kids. He divides us by gender by seeking to restrict reproductive choice for women. He divides us by sexual orientation by appointing reactionary judges to the bench, and as he did in Texas by refusing to sign the Hate Crimes bill if it included gay or lesbian Americans as potential victims.
It is a Bush Doctrine of domestic division, and I want to be the President who tears that doctrine up, too. I want to restore a sense of community in this country – where it’s not enough to worry whether your own kids have health care, but whether your neighbors’ kids have health care. I want to go to the South and talk about race. White southerners have been flocking to the Republican Party in recent years, but I want to offer them hope that their children will benefit from better schools and affordable health care, too. The Republican Party has done nothing for working people, black or white, and we need to remind Southern white folks that the only hope for better schools, and better job opportunities, and health care that is affordable is a Democratic President.
I am what is commonly referred to as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I am proud of the fact that as Governor I routinely balanced the budget – which I was not required to do by Vermont’s constitution – and paid down our state debt by nearly a quarter. I had to make tough decisions, and I will admit that some of them did not make the progressive community happy. But I made those decisions because I have a guiding principle that social justice must rest upon a foundation of fiscal discipline. Because of that approach to governance, Vermont today is not cutting education and is not cutting Medicaid despite the perilous economic times brought on by the Bush fiscal policies.
One of my goals as a Presidential candidate is to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party – a line made popular by the late Paul Wellstone. Some have questioned why I would so closely align myself with a politician whose politics were considerably more liberal than mine. The fact is that I admired Paul Wellstone greatly, not only because of his politics, but because he stood up for his beliefs and fought for them until the day he died. I can only hope that someday people will say the same about me – that I, too, remained true to my core principles no matter what. I believe that the Democratic Party needs to stand for something if we want people to vote for us. And by standing against the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war and domestic division, we may yet rediscover the soul of our Party.
Howard Dean's campaign website is www.deanforamerica.com
As anti-war sentiment has grown, Dean has notched up his criticisms a bit, but when operating without a script his knowledge of foreign affairs seems a bit thin. Take his last Meet the Press appearance: Tim Russert ran rings around Dean. For example, when Russert claimed that Europe was now supporting the war, Dean didn’t have the facts to refute Russert’s inaccurate assertion. Nor does Dean’s discourse contain much reference to preserving and extending the international rule of law.
Dean sometimes seems to want to have it both ways: The week after having attacked Kerry for his pro-war vote, Dean — at a Roll Call editorial-board meeting at the end of January — gave the Capitol Hill weekly a rather hawkish declaration that if Bush presented “evidence that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, then I’d go back to the U.N. and get a new resolution that either disarms in 60 days or we go in.” That’s roughly the current U.S. position (if one accepts Colin Powell’s mendacious U.N. speech as “evidence”).
Roughly, kinda, sorta... blah blah blah. Dean was very clear that he would only support action against Iraq if there was proof they had WMD and that we'd go through the UN. Both of which were NOT part of the Bush plan... Bush blew off the UN and had no proof of WMD as we now know.
Had we followed Dean's plan, we would NOT be in Iraq, because there never was any proof of WMD.
Dean has neither the substance nor the gumption to conduct a fully articulated educative campaign against the war (probably because the poor chap thinks he can actually win).
>>>>
Boy BLM, think you could find a more biased source?
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/082/nation/Dean_s_rhetoric_on_war_creates_a_campaign_stirP.shtml
Dean's rhetoric on war creates a campaign stir
Presidential hopeful defends his stance and angers 2 rivals
By Glen Johnson, Globe Staff, 3/23/2003
>>>>>>
Now Dean is facing questions about his rhetoric surrounding the war.
Early last week, after Dean had been in South Carolina, Lee Bandy, a longtime political reporter for The State newspaper of Columbia, wrote that Dean ''will tone down his criticism of President Bush in the weeks ahead.'' Bandy quoted Dean as saying, ''It's hard to criticize the president when you've got troops in the field.''
The same day, USA Today reported, ''One of the most outspoken Democratic presidential candidates, former Vermont governor Howard Dean, calls it `the wrong war at the wrong time' and says he will continue criticizing Bush's policies.''
On Friday, Dean sought a correction from the Los Angeles Times after it published an interview that quoted Dean as saying he was ''uncomfortable'' offering his usual criticism of the war because it might be misinterpreted abroad now that the fighting has begun. The Times stood by its story.
The interview came after Dean told a group of newspaper editors in Washington: ''When the troops are in the field, they are all our kids, they are all our grandchildren ... This is not the time to beat up the president on the war.''
In demanding the correction, Dean issued a statement declaring: ''The , at the same event wrote, quote, `Antiwar presidential candidate Howard Dean said he will not silence his criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy now that the war has begun, but he will stop the ''red meat'' partisan attacks.' Dean's view that this is the wrong war at the wrong time is well known and has not changed.''
In an interview with the Globe on Friday, Dean argued that his position about the war and his rhetoric surrounding it has been clear and consistent. ''I'm not going to use red-meat criticism and attack the president, but I'm not going to support his war policy, but I'm going to support the troops,'' he said.
While Dean said he was staunchly opposed to the war and planned to continue criticizing it, he also said the United States should keep fighting, putting him at odds with other antiwar activists who have been calling for an immediate cease-fire. ''We're in. We don't have any choice now. But this is the wrong choice,'' Dean said. ''There will be some who think we should get out immediately, but I don't think that's an easy position to take.''
>>>>>
Umm AND? How does that support your position? All that is, is a collection of quotes about how Dean said he'd lay off the attacks on Bush, but would continue to oppose his war policy? A few papers tried to spin that as Dean reversing himself, however Dean's position was consistent that he'd lay off the red meat attacks on Bush personally, and focus on opposition to his war policy.
How does that show that biden lugar was the same thing as the iraq war authorization Kerry supported and signed? Do you just have some txt file of Dean bashing shit you roll out when your BS is called?
Published on Monday, April 14, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
As Baghdad Falls Howard Dean Folds Back into the National Security Establishment
by Charles Knight
On April 9, 2003, the day that most American newspapers headlined the "liberation of Baghdad", Howard Dean, a Democratic presidential candidate notable for his opposition to Bush's war against Iraq, gave a speech in Washington which went a long way toward endorsing the Bush doctrine of preventive war.
Dean has been a favorite candidate among anti-war Democrats because he believes an imminent threat from Iraq was never proven and therefore the situation did not justify the invasion. In his remarks to the Alliance for American Leadership, an invitation-only organization of foreign policy specialists most of whom were associated with the Clinton administration, Dean addressed the problems of possible nuclear proliferation to North Korea and Iran. As reported in the Boston Globe he made a point of saying that he would not rule out using military force to disarm either North Korea or Iran.
In effect this supposedly 'anti-war' Democrat has announced his support for a policy in which Washington will decide which countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons and will reserve for itself the right to forcefully disarm those who do not voluntarily disarm by U.S. dictate. In this crucial regard Dean's position is in close accordance with the Bush doctrine of coercive disarmament and preventive war.
What a steaming pile... Dean says he won;t rule out use of force in a given situation without having the all the information and facts in front of him... and to Common Dreams that is the same thing as supporting Bush doctrine?
You are reaching so fucking hard you must look like stretch Armstrong.
Dean did seek to draw a distinction between his policy and that of the Bush administration by advocating a return to the Clinton policy of "constructive engagement." However, in the context of a world with preventive counter-proliferation warfare this is a distinction not of principle, but only of pragmatic considerations.
>>>>>
This is a load of crap. I personally have seen Dean speak on these issues, and he does in fact say that he supports what Clinton was doing and that Bush F-ed it up.
Dean wrote a rebuttal,
Oh so you posted this shit knowing it was shit... are you that desperate for sources that you quote stuff you know has already been refuted?
but, does anyone notice how he needs to "clarify" an awful lot for someone who's supposed to be a straightshooter who says what he means? I think people get confused because he tries to be TOO CUTE with his wording, always covering his ass while saying he's baring it.
Looks more to me like CD wrote a bullshit hit piece and Dean shot right back with the facts. Bet that you saw it that way too, hence the fact you put clarify in quotes. What Dean was doing was refuting someone else’s lies, and he did it very very well.
I'll go ahead and quote his rebuttal above so you can see how well... right next to the other bullshit hit piece you quote that says Dean never opposed Bush on that preemptive policy.
Ever notice that all the BS attacks you come up with have already been shot down and exposed as BS, many by Dean himself?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
