Dean's answers on Iraq WERE hypothetical. Sept. 2002 transcript.

[madfloridian]

In another thread, Debi gave me the date of this transcript. Thanks!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/main523726.shtml

SNIP..."GOV. HOWARD DEAN, D-VT: Not quite yet. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. The question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not yet made the case for that.

I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we've had over the weekend(I think Saddam had refused inspectors...then allowed them) that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it's got to be gone about in a very different way. It really is important to involve our allies, to bring other people into the coalition, to get a decent resolution out of the U.N. Security Council.

And if Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, we are clearly going to have to do something about it. But I'm not convinced yet and the president has not yet made the case, nor has he ever said, this is an immediate threat. (SADDAM LET INSPECTORS IN so that argument is moot.)

In fact, the only intelligence that has been put out there is the British intelligence report, which says he is a threat but not an immediate one.

GLORIA BORGER, U.S. News & World Report: Governor, what exactly does the president then have to prove to you?

DEAN: I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.

Scheiffer and Borger were absolutely pumping him and practically accusing the guy of being unpatriotic. He held his own and presented HYPOTHETICAL arguments.

To be fair, most people here at this forum knew that we had sold Saddam all kinds of good chemical and biological weapons. Business Weekly (?) carried the original CDC letter.....it is on my hard drive and can be found on the net through a search. Saddam did have weapons, we gave them to him. It was up to the president to be honest, and they were pumping Dean very hard here. Hussein Kamel's testimony to their destruction had been kept quiet by the UN for all practical purposes. It is not well-known that he had told of their destruction.

Dean stood up well to this. I am tired of seeing his stance against an unjust war being used against him because of these HYPOTHETICAL statements from 2002. In fact he was really thinking out the reasons a congressman could have voted for the invasion.

I think everyone who voted for the Iraq invasion needs to take responsibility for it on the grounds Dean presented or whatever grounds they choose to use. Hollings and Rockefeller have. Kerry did at the meeting at Franken's house. They need to stop putting this blame on Dean's HYPOTHETICAL answers.

[Debi]

1. Go Dean...Go madfloridian

Can this conversation now be over?

Fine that Kerry's staff memebers felt it appropriate during the primary to use comments from these transcrpts out of context to try to paint Dean in an inappropriate light.

Now that Kerry is the presumed nominee let's let Governor Dean be Governor Dean and let his supporters honor him.

Kerry supporters may want to use this time to support Kerry rather than continuing to try to tear down Dean.

Ya think???

[madfloridian]

2. Ya think?

Nah...never happen. Too much responsiblity must be accepted. Too many deaths.

[mzmolly]

26. Nope. The war is not over and discussion about said war is "not over"

so the conversation continues. Additionally, there are people HERE that twist Dean's words continually to essentially say "he and X agreed on the war" when in fact, it's not true. :hi:

[madfloridian]

3. Here is the CDC letter from Sept 2002

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2002/nf20020920_3025.htm

SNIP..."In a previously unreleased letter obtained by BusinessWeek, the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention admitted that the CDC supplied Iraqi scientists with nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples in the 1980s, including the plague, West Nile, and dengue fever. The letter, written in 1995 by then-CDC director David Satcher, was in response to a congressional inquiry....."

SNIP.."The CDC's 1995 Letter to the Senate

In 1995, the Center for Disease Control & Prevention provided to then-Senator Donald Riegel (D-Mich.) a complete list of all biological materials -- including viruses, retroviruses, bacteria, and fungi -- that the CDC provided to Iraq from Oct. 1, 1984 through Oct. 13, 1993. Among the materials on the list are several types of dengue and sandfly fever virus, West Nile virus, and plague-infected mouse tissue smears. In his letter to Riegel, then-CDC Director David Satcher wrote: "Most of the materials were non-infectious diagnostic reagents for detecting evidence of infections to mosquito-borne viruses."

And the letter is shown.

This article came out just about 10 days before Dean's being verbally attacked by Borger and Scheiffer. Think he was not trying to be cautious? Think not? Of course he was. Kamel's testimony was largely ignored, so I doubt our illustrious interviewers even were aware....since they do no research much anymore.

[madfloridian]

4. What Kamel said....what happened to the weapons.

http://www.fair.org/extra/0305/kamel.html
Where did all the weapons go?
SNIP...."Before the war, media overlooked a key story
By Seth Ackerman

If the media seem surprised by the U.S. military's failure, as of this writing, to find any hidden chemical or biological weapons in Iraq, maybe it's because they virtually ignored a critical story that was lost in a flood of stories about the dangers of a chemically armed Saddam Hussein. Weeks before the war began (3/3/03), Newsweek's John Barry published an account of a secret United Nations transcript recording the 1995 interview between U.N. weapons inspectors and Iraq's highest-ranking defector, former weapons chief Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel.

For years, the story of Kamel's defection had been used by reporters, pundits and high-ranking U.S. foreign policymakers to prove that Iraq amassed vast stockpiles of dangerous weapons. But in the transcript obtained by Newsweek, Kamel added a crucial qualifier: "All weapons--biological, chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed."

SNIP...."But Kamel was no obscure defector. A son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, his 1995 departure from Iraq carrying crate-loads of secret documents on Iraq's past weapons programs was a major turning point in the inspections saga. The U.N. disarmament group that inspected Iraq through most of the 1990's asserted that its entire eight-year history of weapons searches "must be divided into two parts, separated by the events following the departure from Iraq, in August 1995, of Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel" (UNSCOM report to the Security Council, 1/25/99)."

SNIP..."Yet when Kamel was killed following his 1996 return to Iraq, Ekeus' spokesperson, Ewen Buchanan, insisted that the defector, far from being a "liar," had provided "valuable information" to the inspectors (AFP, 2/21/96). And Scott Ritter, who led UNSCOM's investigation into Kamel's defection, maintains that Ekeus is confusing two different sets of weapons: those that Iraq declared to inspectors and those it denied having. The first group were indeed destroyed by the U.N. in the early 1990s. It's the second group of weapons, the undeclared weapons, that Kamel claimed were destroyed secretly by Iraq in 1991. Indeed, Kamel's 1995 claim about the secret destruction of weapons would have been "absurd" if it had referred to weapons destroyed by the U.N. in the early 1990s, since it was Kamel himself, as head of Iraq's weapons industries, who had originally handed them over to the very organization that later took his testimony......"

The way they were pumping Bush-apologetic questions into Dean that day, it was a wonder he could contain himself at all. It is shame for them to have accused him of supporting the war this way.

Time for responsibility from all. You can find all this info all over DU if you do an archives search, from before the war.

[blm]

5. Bottom line was ALWAYS that at the time Dean would've voted for BidenLugar

And Biden-Lugar allowed Bush the final decision for pre-emptive war that IWR had YET Dean and his supporters criticized Kerry throughout for allowing Bush to make that decision.

Exalt Dean's positions all you want, but if he had been in the position to vote he would have been stuck with that vote which wasn't SIGNIFICANTLY different than Kerry's IWR vote and STILL allowed Bush to make the final call with NO return to Congress for a vote as so many miistakenly believed.

Kerry and Dean's positions on Iraq were NOT MUCH DIFFERENT and those of you who keep trying to glorify Dean for his Iraq position while dumping on Kerry for his are the ones who refuse to put the issue to rest.

Some of us are merely replying with incredulity at the attempts to turn Dean into Kucinich and Kerry into Bush.

If it bothers you then you should consider what bothers others.

[Bill Todd]

6. It appears to be the truth that bothers others

But then anyone who can suppress serious reservations about Kerry's increasingly neocon positions pretty clearly already has the ability to manage such annoyances, so perhaps I should instead suggest that it's the expression of the truth that bothers others, because that expression might influence more open minds whose votes Kerry supporters would like to believe they own.

- bill

[sangha]

10. Actually, Dean seems to agree with Kerry's "neo-con" positions

so I'm unclear as to how this "expression" differs

But, leave it to you to try to confuse the issue by arguing that what people on DU say has some bearing on what Dean's position was at some time in the past.

But at least you covered all the bases. You got to criticize Dean supporters for being unable to recognize the truth of Dean's position in the past, and you also got to criticize Kerry supporters for being unable to recognize Kerry's "neo-con" foriegn policy.

[madfloridian]

7. Bush said Biden-Lugar would "tie my hands."

Apparently Bush himself thought it would bind him in some ways.

Bush to Congress: Don't Tie my Hands
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/bush.iraq/

Wolf Blitzer interviewing Ari Fleischer, saying it would tie Bush's hands.
Also from Oct 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0210/01/se.05.html

Fleischer in a press conference saying Bush thinks it would "tie his hands."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021001-4.html

Actually I said in my first post that Dean was actually defending the positions of those who were to vote for the war. I also realize Dean is not really a liberal, and he is not anti-war. I just feel that those who voted to go should take responsibility and defend their positions as the truth comes out.

If Bush thought Biden Lugar would tie his hands, I don't see how one can blame anyone else for thinking that. I am not being ugly toward Kerry, and if you notice I do not take part in the threads which attack him.

[AmyStrange]

8. Biden-Lugar was not the same as the IWR...

it was quite different... otherwise why did they drop it and go with the IWR? Thanx for the "don't tie my hands" links MadFloridian. Much appreciated. It helps prove my point that the B-L was not the same as the IWR,

d

[sangha]

9. Now you're citing Bush* to prove a point?

That's just sad

[madfloridian]

14. Yes, Bush said Biden Lugar would tie his hands.

Dean apparently thought that also. Then the Kerry campaign said he approved of the war because he thought that. Convolution reigns supreme.

[sangha]

16. Bush* also that civil service rules for Homeland Defense tied his hands

Did you believe that was the true reason he opposed civil service rules?

Then the Kerry campaign said he approved of the war because he thought that

Gotta cite? Kerry never said he "approved of war" because Biden-Lugar "tied Bush*'s hands"

[madfloridian]

20. Yes, the Kerry campaign said Dean approved of the war......

because he considered Biden-Lugar. There are many articles on this on a google search. I think the terms iraq, kerry, dean will bring results on this.

Even Ivo Daalder, Dean's former advisor, said Dean said they should not vote for the IWR. Thinking Biden-Lugar might tie Bush's hands was not wrong for Dean to do. Bush even thought it would.

Here is the statement from an article at the Kerry site, I found it in google cache. I kept the statement, but will have to search for the article:
SNIP..."Dean advisor Ivo Daalder, a foreign policy analyst at the Brookings Institute, said that at the heart of Dean's support for Biden-Lugar was an effort to put more constraints on the administration.

"When Biden-Lugar went down, unlike other candidates for president, Howard Dean said, 'I don't think we should vote for what's on the table,' " Daalder said.

"There is no inconsistency. No one has ever accused Howard Dean of being in favor of the war."

Thomas Mann, a foreign policy analyst at the Brookings Institute, agreed that Biden-Lugar could have dampened the momentum for war and ultimately allowed time for a diplomatic solution......"
The article is from December 2003.

[sangha]

30. Bush* and a Dean advisor are not the most credible cites

to defend Dean with. I'm sure I could find a Kerry advisor who would say the opposite of the Dean advisor.

[madfloridian]

32. Uh, Daalder is now a Kerry advisor.

I believe he is now rather getting retribution for supporting Dean and is back in the DLC fold now.(Source:The New Republic) He is one who recently suggested that Dean and Clark might hurt Kerry by speaking out.

I am sure you could find a lot to support your view. May I suggest that you do so? I have posted comprehensive posts with links and sources.

You keep replying to me in one or two sentences with nothing but criticism.

Please look up sources and post them. That is how you debate.

[sangha]

38. It's not advisable for you to tell me how to debate

I do not need to find links because your argument is weak. You claim that Dean's position was "hypothetical" (with the implication that this somehow excuses it) because it hadn't happened yet, but the same argument applies to everyone because it hadn't happened yet for them.

The error of your argument is demonstrated clearly by how you fail to apply to the other Democrats. If you really believed your argument was worthy, you'd use it more regularly. That's how debate works.

And remember that this is all because of the fallacious claim that there's a significant difference between IWR and Biden-Lugar, and that B/L somehow "tied Bush*'s hands" without ever explaining how it would have done so. All you have is Bush* and a Dean advisor.

You can post as many self-serving links as you like, I only count the credible ones.

[ibegurpard]

27. Still trying to get mileage out of your ridiculous Biden-Lugar spiel?

I'll just reply with my standard "The ACLU does not agree with you that Biden-Lugar would have been significantly better than the IWR."

[drfemoe]

28. confusing syntax .

"not agree with you .. would have been better" .. not sure that's what you intended to say.

[ibegurpard]

41. You are correct...I left out a word

"The ACLU does not agree with you that Biden-Lugar would NOT have been significantly better than the IWR."
is what I meant to say... the left-out word in all-caps.

[sandnsea]

11. Saddam let inspectors in IS the whole argument

JM&J, the reason he let the inspectors in was because the IWR gave Bush the muscle he needed to force the UN to get tough on the inspections process. That has been what Kerry people have said from day one. And you posted it right in your own g.d. thread and then say "argument is moot" because you know damn good and well that's the whole argument. Dean can't be against the war if he's for war if inspectors aren't allowed into Iraq. Because the only way to get those inspectors in was some sort of resolution, which is why he supported Biden-Lugar.

He's a made up anti-war candidate, well after Kerry came out against Bush and his rush to war.

[seaglass]

12. What is the point of this thread?

All this does is harden positions on both sides and it's divisive - it's not changing anyone's mind.

Dean is no longer a candidate, other than those who want to continue to beat a dead horse, who cares?

[madfloridian]

13. By asking the point of the thread, you reinforce my fear about Iraq.

My fear is that it is only the beginning. I think the statement in the PNAC documents that Iraq can be used as the "immediate justification" for the remapping of the middle east, also the "gateway" is mentioned.

Bush and Kerry are going to increase the number of our troops there, even while talking about the UN. Then we are going to go Syria and Iran and Libya, and so on...to be sure we are all safe and cozy.

I am very afraid for our future as a nation, both morally and financially. Dean spoke his piece on pre-emptive war, and I would feel better if others did. But of course, as you are so fond of reminding me in various threads....Dean is dead. (Well, not really, not in the form of DFA 2.0)

I want to feel that our nominee does not approve of continuing the policy of pre-emption or whatever name you wish to call it. That is the purpose of the post. That is the purpose of other posts on or similiar to this topic.....to determine if our nominee will continue the Bush policy. At this point, I am inclined to think he will. That makes me sad to see our country go this route.

Sorry you felt you had to ask. It means the policy does not bother you, I guess.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. I would also hope...

that this not be escalated further than it already has been, but we have a problem.

Regardless of who said what before it all started, and where we would like to put the blame, we have by now managed to destroy two countries, and have thereby accepted responsibility for them. Powell's "Pottery Barn" argument-- you broke it, you bought it.

I could be wrong on this, but I doubt there will be any further esacalation like invading Syria or such nonsense. We barely have the means to handle what's already on our plate, and the public seems to be getting quite restless at the lack of progress in Iraq, and much less interested in starting new adventures.

We are, however, mired in Iraq and Afghanistan and the question is no longer the Where's Waldo quest, or the grand war on terrah, but how the hell do we get ourselves out of this mess.

After waltzing in and bombing them to rubble saying "We're America, and we're here to save you," we can't possibly just walk out and leave them to pick up the pieces after the inevitable civil war. Talk about destabilizing the area...

Nope, we are stuck with this and have to see it through. My hope is that a new broom sweeps clean and Kerry will be able to forge an international team that will be able to stabilize and rebuild Iraq and defuse some of the tensions that are aiding recruitment for those murky terror groups and insurgents.

[sangha]

17. Dean supports Kerry's plan for Iraq

Dean's differences with Kerry in the past over IWR do not indicate a difference on their plans for Iraq's future. Dean supports Kerry's plan to increase the size of the military. Dean supports Kerry's plan to bring the UN into Iraq. Dean supports Kerry's decision to not pull out of Iraq. And Dean supports Kerry's call for more troops in Iraq.

Bush and Kerry are going to increase the number of our troops there, even while talking about the UN. Then we are going to go Syria and Iran and Libya, and so on...to be sure we are all safe and cozy.

If you are truly concerned about the increase in the number of our troops there, then it's inadvisable to cite Dean's opposition to the invasion to argue against it because Dean has not opposed increasing the number of troops there, and he does not support a pull out from Iraq.

IOW, if your concern is the current policies, citing past policies doesn't work.

[madfloridian]

19. Dean agrees we can not just leave.

Did I say he did not? I agree also. We can not just pull out and leave chaos. I think we are in a heck of a mess, and I am very scared for our soldiers. I am scared for the amount of money we are pumping into that fiasco.

I find that you would rather argue with me than present issues of your own. Actually, that worries me a lot, that people are not demanding that our congressional leaders and our party take responsibility.

[sangha]

31. You accused Kerry of planning on invading the entire Middle East

Bush and Kerry are going to increase the number of our troops there, even while talking about the UN. Then we are going to go Syria and Iran and Libya, and so on...to be sure we are all safe and cozy.

If Kerry is taking over the Middle East, then Dean approves.

[madfloridian]

33. Hogwash.

Some things are not worthy to be argued. You just make a statement that Dean approves. I challenge you to present sources for your argument. My source is the PNAC signed by Will Marshall who is advising Kerry on foreign policy. It is called remapping the middle east.

[sangha]

39. They're your words

You accused Kerry of wanting to invade the entire ME, and now you've just repeated it.

My source is the PNAC signed by Will Marshall who is advising Kerry on foreign policy. It is called remapping the middle east

[seaglass]

22. No it looks to me that you are attempting to clear Dean's

name and that's what I call beating a dead horse.

You read much more into my question than was intended so no need to become more fearful. I was just reacting to another pathetic Dean post.

[madfloridian]

23. You call this a "pathetic Dean post"? "Pathetic"?

I don't have to "clear" his name. I posted this with good research to "clarify".

Calling me names, calling this pathetic is really quite a poor way to show fellow Democrats you understand that the party is a diverse group.

It is insulting to me to call my post "pathetic." I see no need for such terms to be used.

I insulted no one in my post, and I did not deserve to be insulted.

[seaglass]

24. Clear or clarify - same purpose. I didn't call you a name,

why would you say that?

Yes, I do think most of the Dean threads on DU are pathetic; I can't help it if my opinion offends you.

[madfloridian]

25. I don't care enough to be offended. I disagree with you on Dean posts.

I don't think they are pathetic at all. It seems to bother you, but I can't see why. I see Kucinich and Clark and Edwards people post here, and I like to read the posts. I like to know what they are doing now, and I find it interesting.

This post was not about you or your likes and dislikes, and it was not offensive in any way. I find it odd that people find Dean posts a threat or an offense. That is just silly.

[sangha]

34. You didn't merely disagree. You took personal offense

I insulted no one in my post, and I did not deserve to be insulted.

[madfloridian]

35. That is correct.

And I insulted no one. I am not offended because I don't care.

[seaglass]

42. I'm not threatened nor offended by posts about Dean.

The words you used don't resemble anything I said or if you could see into my thoughts, anything I was thinking or feeling.

It looked to me like you were hoping for a response such as: Yes, you were right, Dean was talking about hypothetical situations, I was wrong.

Since there is no turning back the clock and we cannot change the outcome of the primary, it seemed to me that the point of the thread was some sort of vindication and to me that is pathetic.

Don't worry though, I've found a solution to this silliness.

[AmyStrange]

44. then why the need to explain yourself?

on such detail and then "passive-aggressively" announce you found a "solution" to what you call "silliness" as sort of your way to belittle a thread you deemed it necessary to participate in.

You're threatened by Dean's logic for no other reason than it is silliness to you. Get your butt out of your chair and use the DU for good rather than as a forum for you to proclaim from you high chair that "I've found a solution to this silliness".

The only real solution to this silliness is getting Bush out of office and helping to get more Dems into Congress and elected to local office.

MadFloridian is doing her part and nothing she has done or written here is helping Kerry NOT get elected. She is doing a lot more to help Kerry with DFA 2.0 than you've done this whole thread.

What exactly are you doing to help except to undermine the one person who is keeping me and so many other folks here interested in Campaign 2004.

What exactly are you afraid of here anyway?



sig:
"The Truth knows no master" - AmyStrange said to me in a dream

10) And best of all, check these out:

the "First Seven Days Underground" by Skinner:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/01/010127_7days.html
mirror pages:
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-1.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-2.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-3.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-4.html


the best "unofficial" DU slang Dictionary in the world:
http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/





Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/


Serious serial killer news and
discussion at the "Serial Killer Cafe":
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/

[drfemoe]

29. Dean is a Democrat

and he is on OUR side. So, I don't get the "both sides" reference. Dean has been much more gracious and dedicated to the effort than many are STILL willing to admit. Why do you want to discredit someone who is working so hard to get Kerry into the WH?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. Who cares what Dean said a year and a half ago?

who gives a fuck? It's totally irrelevant to anything that matters.


What he is saying now, certainly seems more relevant to me.

[madfloridian]

21. What he is saying now is more important, agreed.

Just hate to see people misrepresenting anyone's views on a topic.

All I want is to know that we are not going to continue this policy of remapping.

[sangha]

36. Very pathetic

You're trying to defend Dean's position on Biden-Lugar and the Iraqi invasion because it was "hypothetical" at that time, but you don't excuse anyone else for their positions at the time even though the possibility of war was just as hypothetical for them.

I'd be more likely to believe your rationalization if you didn't apply it so selectively. The fact still remains, that like many of the Dems who voted for IWR, Dean would support a unilateral and/or pre-emptive war, but not the one Bush* started.

[madfloridian]

37. Boo!

:evilgrin:

[sangha]

40. That's not much of a defense

The core of your assertion, that war was "hypothetical" at that point, is irrelevant to this issue because it was as hypothetical for everyone else as it was for Dean (with the exception of the Bush* admin who were in on the planning.)

[AmyStrange]

43. That's not much of a defense either....

Nothing I have read from you is a defense for anything you write, because the only core to your assertions is that you don't like Dean. Now THAT's pathetic. What exactly are you afraid of anyway?




sig:
"The Truth knows no master" - AmyStrange said to me in a dream

10) And best of all, check these out:

the "First Seven Days Underground" by Skinner:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/01/010127_7days.html
mirror pages:
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-1.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-2.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-3.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-4.html


the best "unofficial" DU slang Dictionary in the world:
http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/





Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/


Serious serial killer news and
discussion at the "Serial Killer Cafe":
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/