Howard Dean Position on War

[cosmik debris]

I remember back before Christmas Mr. Dean made a statement on MTP that the Democratic Party did not have a position on the war in Iraq. He told us that the party would have a position after the first of the year. Did he ever follow up on that? I am just curious about what role Mr. Dean plans to take in keeping the party together. I remember the 1968 election where we in the anti-war movement split the party because we could not support pro-war HHH. I suspect that it is about to happen again. (I know I will not vote for anyone who believes that we can achieve some military/political objective in Iraq) So what is Dean's plan? Anybody have a clue? Has the party established a position on the war yet? Just curious, no need to flame me because I mention Dean's name with insufficient reverence.

[Skinner]

1. I have not heard of that statement by Dean.

Could you give me a link or something so I could see it? Thanks.

[cosmik debris]

3. I haven't got the link or even the exact quote,

but I clearly remember the stink I caused on this forum when I suggested that "Next year" was too long to wait. It would probably be in the Sunday threads from late Nov. or early Dec.

[maddezmom]

7. here's the transcript of MTP 11/13/05..is this what you are referring to?

MR. RUSSERT: But is it enough for you to say to the country, "Trust us, the other guy's no good. We'll do better, but we're not going to tell you specifically how we're going to deal with Iraq."
~snip~
DR. DEAN: We will. When the time comes, we will do that.

MR. RUSSERT: When's the time going to come?

DR. DEAN: The time is fast-approaching. And I outlined the broad outlines of our agenda. We're going to have specific plans in all of these areas.

MR. RUSSERT: This year?

DR. DEAN: In 2006.

MR. RUSSERT: The Supreme Court...

DR. DEAN: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: ...the president has nominated Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. Should the Democrats in the Senate--there's only 45 of them, but if they stayed together as a block...

~snip~
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9967566/

[cosmik debris]

8. Thank you for doing my homework.

n/t

[Skinner]

9. Thanks. (nt)

[mrgorth]

2. I suspect

that there will not be a party-wide position on the war. I'm not even sure there needs to be one.

[cosmik debris]

4. Do you think the party will split like it did in '68?

n/t

[cali]

5. No

People are united against the repukes. Everything else is secondary.

[mrgorth]

6. I don't think so

But I'm too young for that (born in 69). Hell, Dean's personal opinion on the war isn't even for immediate withdrawl.

[Le Taz Hot]

12. Yep.

Sans the violence of Chicago. It's a quiet revolution and it's already happened.

[cosmik debris]

15. That is the way I see it, but I believe we are in the minority.

I was just optimistic that we could nominate a candidate who recognizes that there are no more military objectives that we can accomplish in Iraq, and our political objectives can not be achieved with military force. I will bet you right now that whoever the Dems nominate will say that we should stay a little longer, that there is still some objective that we can achieve by military force.

I believe that peace in Iraq is not in OUR hands and therefore we should leave.

[WePurrsevere]

14. From what I've seen on DU that will depend on who is nom'd by the Dems.

It also may depend on if there's a viable 3rd party candidate that resonates with "middle America".

[madfloridian]

10. Supporting the Korb plan.

You can find it at the Center for American Progress site. Get the guard and reserves out now, start redeploying the rest.

Dean is not permitted to have a plan, though he has been trying to rally the others. With the new move by the Ickes/Clinton/Rosenberg group...we will probably not hear much from the rest about it.

Not sure what you mean about is he keeping the party together. You need to read the WP and make up your own mind about it.

[cosmik debris]

17. By keeping the party together

I mean finding a position that will allow anti-war activists to stay in the Democratic Party. If the nominal leader of our party (Presidential Nominee of 2008) says that we need to continue the fight in Iraq, there will be a significant defection from the Party.

The only time in my life I have declined to vote for a Democrat was in 1968. I wrote in Mickey Mouse rather than vote to continue that war. I will do it again if I am forced to, and I know others who feel the same way. We are not the majority, but we can stop the Democratic Party dead in its tracks just as we did in 1968. Of course in the long run, all we got for the effort was a clean conscience.

[madfloridian]

11. Link to just one article, there are many.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/20/democrats_may_unite_on_plan_to_pull_troops/

[cosmik debris]

13. A very good article

Thank you

[welshTerrier2]

16. Dean's position is hideous: "out of Iraq by the end of 2007"

as pointed out by another poster above, Dean is supporting the "Korb" plan ... when Dean endorsed the Korb plan, he was promoting the idea of TWO MORE YEARS OF WAR AND OCCUPATION ... anyone looking at the situation in Iraq today should see the Korb plan as bordering on insanity ... it's a hideous plan ... to accept even another day of war and occupation, you have to accept the belief that bush's objectives in Iraq are legitimate and that the US is actually making any progress at all ... i do NOT accept either premise ...

here's an excerpt from the Boston Globe article that documents Dean's position:

The concept, dubbed "strategic redeployment," is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall. It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007, although many Democrats disagree on whether troop draw-downs should be tied to a timeline.

Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee chairman, has endorsed Korb's paper and begun mentioning it in meetings with local Democratic groups.

[cosmik debris]

18. If we are out by 2007 it will not be an issue in 2008

That was my original concern. Of course we can surmise that we will not be out by 2007. Or 2008. and possibly not until we run out of National Guard troops that did not defect to Alabama.

So when 2007 has come and gone, what will the Dems support then?