Howard Dean knew Iraq was a bad idea and he knows HCR without PO or Medicare

[dkf]

Expansion isn't worth a damn. It's going to be another case of I told you so and just as painful.

[peacebird]

1. Go HOWARD!

[democrank]

2. Howard Dean....

truth teller.

[SIMPLYB1980]

3. Oddly it's still better than his old plan was. nt

[readmoreoften]

5. How come this is identical in phrasing to another DU poster. Sockpuppet? Or message discipline?

Also, neither of you gave anything more than a soundbite. Interesting.

[SIMPLYB1980]

8. The truth.

[readmoreoften]

11. Wow, so the truth is a crafted sound bite.

Interesting.

[slinkerwink]

17. It's message discipline. The WH is coordinating this.

[Sebastian Doyle]

18. The Rahmbots have been spinning this shit all day long

Same thing the DLC has done about once a week to Dean since 2003 - massive repetition of the same bullshit talking points over and over.

[Cha]

4. Yes, that's what drew me to Dean in the first place

and too bad he can't work magic on the spoilers.

[NJmaverick]

6. President Obama knew Iraq was a bad idea as well, I hope that fact doesn't make your head explode

like one of those robots on the old Star Trek when they are faced with a logical impossibility.

[dkf]

7. But Dean was first.

For all we know Obama realized how bad Iraq was because of Howard Dean. That is the way I figured it out.

[FrenchieCat]

13. When did Dean come up with it?

Obama spoke about it in October of 2002.

Do you have a link?

[dkf]

19. July 2002

Dean: Here's the problem with bombing Iraq. Look, everybody agrees that having-- that if Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, we can't allow that to continue. What is the game plan afterwards? If you think Afghanistan has problems with any kind of government infrastructure, there's no one that can run Iraq, and no one we can even look to to run Iraq. So if we bomb Iraq and drive Saddam Hussein from power, we have to first have a plan so that we don't end up with American troops in Iraq for the next ten years running the place. 'Cause I think that's an untenable and impossible situation. I think it will lead to more terrorism at home.

So what makes me nervous about the President's talk about Iraq is not that I think it's OK for Saddam to have the atom bomb; obviously that's a disaster. But I don't hear any plan for how we're gonna deal with Iraq if we do get rid of Saddam Hussein. And we need that plan, it has to be in place, and the American people have to understand what that is, before we begin to talk about bombing Iraq, especially unilaterally. I think we've gotta make a case--

Goldfarb: -- Governor --

Dean: -- to the world that that's the right thing to do before we do it. I think this is all loose talk by the President, I think it's probably not--

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Dean_Interview_OnPoint_July3_2002.htm

This is exactly what I agree with. Dean laid out a complete argument that was prescient and well thought out.

[karynnj]

14. Dean was NOT first - it might be simply that you heard Dean in 2003 before you heard Obama

Obama gave his speech completely against the Iraq war and the IWR in fall 2002 before the vote. Dean was far more supportive of aggressive action in Iraq than Obama. Dean never said in that time period that he would have voted against the IWR. The only thing close was that he preferred Biden/Lugar as MANY Democrats, who ended up voting for the IWR did. On one Sunday talk show, he spoke of giving Saddam a firm deadline - say, 6 months - to completely disarm or we would attack unilaterally. Dean was not strongly anti-war until very late 2002 (still before the war).

[cali]

21. so did I. big deal. Obama was essentially a nobody in 2003. Dean was not.

[karynnj]

22. The point is that I responded to someone claiming that Dean influenced

Obama on his anti-war position - and the timeline I gave disproves that. I note you use the year 2003 and it is telling - that is when Dean became the leader of the anti-war movement.

But, Dean was no more anti-war in 2002 than Kerry, Biden or Dodd, Obama was. The difference is that they had to vote and Dean didn't. Dean became the definitive leader of the those against the war around March 2003 when he gave a fantastic speech at the DNC conference. (Kerry was not there due to surgery) For Dean (and Trippi), the war gave Dean the opening to run as the candidate of the left and the anti-war movement. This moved him from being below 5% to the front runner in mid to late 2003. In 2002, he was not prominent enough that most people remembered that he had spoken more aggressively on Saddam than he did later.

Dean never spoke of immediately ending the war and had he become the nominee, he likely would have had many angry people, who thought he was something he wasn't, when he had to state what he would do. (In 2006, he was for the more aggressive Korb plan, when Kerry and Feingold defined their exit strategy.) The fact is that NONE of the candidates, other than Kucinich, Sharpton and Braum, were as antiwar as many Dean people thought he was.

[Cha]

16. You don't think Pres Obama could figure that out for himself?

<snip>

Obama.."Against Going to War in Iraq"

October 2002

.."What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?"

<much more>
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/2002iraqfull

[blm]

23. Dean's position was actually more nuanced than portrayed in the soundbites corpmedia selected.

Dean said in 2002 that he supported the Biden-Lugar version of IWR.

The media and the Dem party never really allowed Dean's true position an honest airing or an honest defense - they kept it in only black and white terms. Kerry's position of voting for Resolution but NOT supporting invasion after weapon inspectors proved military force unnecessary was treated dishonestly in the media and by fellow Democrats, too.

[sandnsea]

9. Just like with Iraq, Howard Dean opposes subsidized insurance

AFTER he discovers there's a following for an "evolved" position. He hasn't changed a bit.

[dkf]

10. I beg to differ

He was the first politician to form a cogent argument that I noticed. Someone like kucinich is reflexively liberal. Dean isn't like that. He is more thorough in his rationale.

[MissDeeds]

12. It looks like a leader is emerging

who may be able to get us out of this mess. Howard Dean won't shut up an go away. He's fighting for us. Dean in 2012 works for me.

[Cha]

15. It may work for you but it won't

work for Dean.

[LastNaturalist]

20. He's our greatest prophet.

Let's kiss his irrelevent ass some more. Him and Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee and every other Democrat that has very little power and does not have to make difficult decisions. They are all just so WONDERFUL.

[PassingFair]

26. There is a difference between predicting the future and telling the truth.

Howard Dean tells the truth.

Here's another truth:

Dennis Kucinich does too.



Your heroes lie and prevaricate.

But, go ahead, keep kissing "relevant" ass.

Enjoy buttsucking those with "power", because
they won't have it very long.

[Vidar]

24. Howard speaks for the people, Obama for the rich.

[treestar]

25. Oh boy, it looks like hero worship is not limited to Obamabots!

There goes that piece of attack material!