Is Dean waffling on Iraq????????

[tedzbear]

http://www.progressive.org/webex03/wx0910b03.html

What the hell is he doing? If he keeps this up I'm going to stop my $ support. I'll switch to Kucinich.

:kick:

[AWD]

1. Yawn

[ryharrin]

2. hey, it actually looks like strongbad is yawning there

What a nice coincidence :)

[janekat]

92. ryharrin - is that jeb or george picking their nose? n/t

[janx]

4. People are getting desperate to discredit Dean.

and it's a slow news day.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

42. Ah,ah, ah....

[kwolf68]

3. Dean

Should get corporate sponsorship from Kellogs for Eggo waffles.

[liberalnurse]

55. Those endorements are already given to Kerry.

.

[E_Zapata]

5. A lot of people say: stop trying to turn Dean into a Kucinich

If you want Kucinich ideals, vote Kucinich.

If you can figure out what Dean's real plans are and they fit with what you want, vote Dean.

But don't mix up the two. They are completely different animals.

[blm]

7. Completely different, and hardly interchangeable.

They never WERE alike.

[madfloridian]

10. Still looking for Dean posts?

Why don't you post supportive stuff about our candidate? I promise not to bash yours.

[blm]

22. only half of them.

.

[Langis]

6. This is the same message

he has had from the beginning

[madfloridian]

8. SHAME on you for posting that.

It just says that he agrees we should not pull out of Iraq as it is now. Oh, come on!

SNIP...."While he did say the war "was a mistake," he added, "We cannot lose the peace in Iraq." He said there would be chaos, and Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalists allied with Iran might take hold.

That's a different answer than he gave in last Thursday's debate, when he said, "We need more troops--more foreign troops. Ours need to come home."

There is not any real difference in those statements. It is not waffling. As the situation worsens, it is the only option, to get other troops in there.

I give up.

[no name no slogan]

14. The truth comes out

I don't think Dean misrepresented what his position is-- it's ALWAYS been his position.

Yes, he wants foreign troops in, but he's always said we need more American troops in Iraq, too. Which is probably also part of the reason he also opposes cutting the military budget, too.

That's Dean's problem right now. Dean has touted himself as "The Anti-War Candidate™", which is not exactly true. He's not against war-- just the way it's been fought.

[madfloridian]

16. I am not anti-war either. Just anti-Iraq war.

I don't love war, but I don't have my head in the clouds either.

[no name no slogan]

24. Ghandi and Jesus had their heads in the clouds then, too

Nice try to paint pacifists as a bunch of naive, innocent airheads.

[kwolf68]

76. AMEN

Friend

If we keep working long and hard enough on these Deanosours, we'll have them drooling to go blow something up.

I am 100% anti-war. I believe it is the scourge of humanity. It will make us extinct on day. Is it pragmatic for the US to quit making guns and bombs? NO...but geezus christ can't we at least try to figure shit out in this world without killing people?

Korea can't feed its fucking people, but has enough military capability to kill millions of people within 8 hours.

Working for a peaceful world should never quit. I realize people like that either get nailed to a tree or shot in the head, but to me its what should define Liberalism.

[Malikshah]

26. Media's the one

The media touted him as such in more general terms.

He's always been on message re: Iraq. He's had to explain that to the media on countless occasions speaking slowly and in mono syllabic words so that they can understand.

I'd never be a politician--I'd be in jail for throttling journalists who are "stupider than a sack of doorknobs" on a regular occasion.

[tedzbear]

94. If that's what he means, he better make it perfectly clear...

...otherwise I'm walking.
:kick:

[kwolf68]

9. BS Dean

If Dean is against the war then why doesnt he say, "If elected President I will end the war." Why doesn't he say, "We need to get out of Iraq now, bring in peacekeepers and save the freaking budget."

Dean gets all this lovable support from his clan of supporters for his NOBLE opposition to the war (of course when he didn't have to vote or be held accountable by anyone)...now he's in position where he may ACTUALLY be making these decisons (if we are so unfortunate to NOT nominate a better candidate) and he's floundering by STAYING in Iraq.

So...He's against the war, but in favor of it carrying on.

So...He's against the death penalty with certain exceptions.

So...He's against federal gun control, believes its a states rights issue yet would not repeal a single federal gun law? Laws he supposedly is against.

Wake the hell up people...

[twilight]

12. too many "ifs" and ...

too much BS piled a mile high if you ask me! Right on!!!!

:kick:

[clar]

23. How simplistic can you get?

You can't put peacekeepers in where there is no peace to keep.
I criticize Dean when I believe he deserves criticism, but he's been wholly consistent here. He's said the same things over and over. This article is nothing but an attack piece.

We can't pull out of Iraq unless there are troops to replace ours. Dean has repeatedly stated that we need to cede greater control to the UN in order to get support and troops to replace ours. Pulling out won't and can't happen overnight.

[deutsey]

27. Am I missing something?

I didn't see where this waffling the first time what Dean said was quoted here on DU, and I still don't see it.

The invasion was a "mistake". Can't disagree with that.

"We can't lose the peace." No, we can't. America is now responsible for the mess in Iraq, regardless of how many of us protested the invasion. If we pull out now without any kind of power structure in in place in the country, either Iraqi or UN, the place is going to go to hell (or to a deeper circle of hell than it's already on).

"We need more troops--more foreign troops. Ours need to come home." Right. Unfortunately, in order to maintain order in the country America has fucked up, we need a military presence there to maintain order until what I hope will be a democratic gov't is created there. I want the American troops who have been there all this time to start coming home.

Damn Bush for even putting us in this mess, but unless we're prepared to watch Iraq go up in flames, I don't know what else we can do except get the international community to help prevent this from becoming a larger humanitarian disaster than it already is.

[tedzbear]

95. Who knows? Maybe Iraq WOULD be better off if all the foreigners split...

It's so typical of Imperialistic fascists to believe that their way is the best and only way for the rest of the world.
As long as Iraq is sitting on the 2nd greatest natural treasure in the world, the motives of all foreigners in Iraq are suspect.
In case you didn't notice, Iraq has ALREADY gone up in flames, twice in the last fifteen years.
:kick:

[w4rma]

28. That is what he's saying: Bring in U.N. peacekeepers to replace U.S.

soldiers. Of course, he has to make amends with the U.N. first by giving them the concessions they want, such as more control over the building of an Iraqi democratic-republic.

…
RAY SUAREZ: And I'll begin tonight's questioning with Governor Dean. The United States is now trying to get help from the United Nations in the form of a resolution to internationalize the mission in Iraq. How much decision-making power can the United States share, while at the same time urging other countries to share the cost and share the risk of being there?

HOWARD DEAN: Well, as you know, I believed from the beginning that we should not go into Iraq without the United Nations as our partner. And in this situation, fortunately the president is finally beginning to see the light. We cannot do this by ourselves, we cannot have an American occupation and reconstruction. We have to have a reconstruction of Iraq with the United Nations, with NATO, and preferably with Muslim troops, particularly Arabic-speaking troops from our allies such as Egypt and Morocco.

We cannot have American troops serving under United Nations command. We have never done that before. But we can have American troops serving under American command, and it's very clear to me that in order to get the United Nations and NATO into Iraq, this president is going to have to go back to the very people he humiliated, our allies, on the way into Iraq, and hope that they will now agree with us that we were wrong to go--excuse me--that they will now agree with us that we need their help there. We were wrong to go in without the United Nations, now we need their help, and that's not a surprise.
…
Governor Dean?
(Speaking in Spanish)
We are spending more than $4 billion a month in Iraq. Do we send more troops?

HOWARD DEAN: Look, I think the most important aspect and the most important quality for any chief executive when they're executing foreign policy is judgment.

I supported the first war in Iraq because one of our allies was invaded, and I thought we had a responsibility to defend them. I supported the war in Afghanistan; 3,000 of our people were murdered. They would have murdered more if they could have. I thought we had a right to defend the United States of America. But in the case of Iraq, the president told us that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were about to make a deal or were making a deal. The truth is, there are more likely to be people from Al Qaeda bombing Iraqis and Americans today than there were before Saddam Hussein was kicked out.

Secondly, the president told us that Iraq was buying uranium from Africa. That wasn't true. The vice president told us that the Iraqis were about to get atomic weapons. That turned out not to be true. The secretary of defense told us he knew exactly where the weapons of mass destruction were, right around Tikrit and Baghdad. That turned out to be false as well.

As commander in chief of the United States military, I will never hesitate to send troops anywhere in the world to defend the United States of America. But as commander in chief of the United States military I will never send our sons and daughters and our brothers and sisters to a foreign country in harm's way without telling the truth to the American people about why they're going there. And that judgment needs to be made first, not afterwards.

We need more troops. They're going to be foreign troops, as they should have been in the first place, not American troops. Ours need to come home.
…
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debate03/part2.html

[kwolf68]

37. So

"Well, as you know, I believed from the beginning that we should not go into Iraq without the United Nations as our partner. "

He wasn't against the war, he just wanted to have more friends in it with us?

I don't get this guy. Maybe its all my fault. Maybe I need remedial reading, BUT I THOUGHT...Howard Dean was AGAINST THE WAR....

Now I learn...well, he really wasn't against it.

[w4rma]

49. Yes. Dean strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq. Dean: October 6, 2002.

…
Speaking at a fundraising dinner filled with activists wary about going to war again in the Persian Gulf again, Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.), and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean highlight the spectrum of opinion within the Democratic Party as lawmakers in Washington prepare to vote on a resolution authorizing war.
…
Dean, whose advocacy of liberal domestic policies has struck a chord among grass-roots activists here, offered the sharpest dissent. He contended that Bush has yet to make a compelling case to justify going to war.

"The greatest fear I have about Iraq is not just that we will engage in unwise conduct and send our children to die without having an adequate explanation from the president of the United States," he said. "The greater fear I have is the president has never said what the truth is, which is if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years to build that democracy and the president must tell us that before we go."
…
http://www.dre-mfa.gov.ir/eng/iraq/iraqanalysis_27.html

[sangh0]

51. Dean is insane if he believes that

If the US does give the military authority over Iraq to the UN, any int'l troops that are sent there will be perceived as agents of the American Occupation.

Do you really think that any nations are going to send troops to Iraq unless the US hands all authority over to the UN?

[w4rma]

60. U.N. troops will likely be led by U.N. leadership or their respective

countries' leadership.

U.S. troops will be led by U.S. leadership.

…
We need more troops. They're going to be foreign troops, as they should have been in the first place, not American troops. Ours need to come home.
…
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debate03/part2.html

As for *how* he'll convince other nations to help bring this mess to a close, I expect that alot will have changed between now and January 2005. Bush is going to have to make the concessions he should have made in the first place.

(this is a duplicate of post #56: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php#327593 )

[sangh0]

67. Wrong

Several nations have already said they won't send troops unless the US surrenders military authority to the UN. The UN resolution that Bush* has submitted for consideration places the intl troops under US authority, not their own authority.

Bush is going to have to make the concessions he should have made in the first place.

There is only one concession needed, as demonstrated by the concessions requested by those nations (India, Turkey, Australia, etc) who might be willing to send troops - Hand military authority to the UN.

Like Bush*, Dean is unwilling to do this.

[w4rma]

81. See post #72

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=327341#327663

[sangh0]

83. Post #72 is in a foreign language

I think

[MGKrebs]

93. The Bottom Line

"If Dean is against the war then why doesnt he say, "If elected President I will end the war."
Dean was against the pre-meditated, unilateral attack.
What does "I will end the war" mean? How would he end it? What time frame? Just pull everybody out immediately? He won't do that. If you want your candidate to do that, it's not gonna be Dean.

Why doesn't he say, "We need to get out of Iraq now, bring in peacekeepers and save the freaking budget."
Because geting out "now" is not realistic. Bush* created this mess, and it won't be solved overnight. Getting out "now" is just as shortsighted as getting "in" was.
Dean has advocated bringing in peacekeepers and saving (i.e. balancing) the budget.

"...his NOBLE opposition to the war (of course when he didn't have to vote or be held accountable by anyone)."
Cheap shot. Because all he could do (because he was not a Senator or Congressman) was to speak out, that is not enough? The fact that he spoke out is a negative? And I think Dean is being held accountable for his position on this every day.

"he's floundering by STAYING in Iraq."
I see no other way. DK might pull us out immediately, but I think this would be a huge disaster. Al Qaida will have a new home.

"So...He's against the death penalty with certain exceptions."
Yup. That's right.

"So...He's against federal gun control, believes its a states rights issue yet would not repeal a single federal gun law? Laws he supposedly is against."
Non-sequiter. He is against federal law. He would enforce federal law. He is not "against" state laws.

I think you are characterizing these as "moral" issues. You have to be for peace or for war. For death penalty or against. For all gun control or against. I (and perhaps many others) don't see these issues like that. Even regarding the death penalty- I disagree with Dean on this- I am against it, but not for moral reasons. I have seen no evidence that it is a deterrent, and we can make mistakes that are irreversible.

Am I not awake?

[deutsey]

11. As much as I wish we had not gone into Iraq

I think it would be disastrous to pull out without getting the international community involved.

I don't see where Dean is waffling. He thought the invasion was wrong, but understands we've got to get more international troops and diplomats involved if we want more US troops to come home.

[sangh0]

15. The only way to get int'l troops in

is to hand over authority to the UN. Even Dean's supporters agree with that. Has Dean called for that? Why not?

Dean, right NOW, has an opportunity to make a difference by calling on Bush* to hand over authority to the UN. Will Dean do the right thing, or will he NOT call for this in the hopes he won't be portrayed as "not supporting the troops"?

[madfloridian]

25. He has.

n/t

[sangh0]

30. Wrong. Please tell the truth

Though Dean HAS called for the US to turn over authority for CIVILIAN matters to the UN, he has NOT called on Bush* to turn over MILITARY authority to the UN.

Yes or no - Should the US hand over to the UN it's MILITARY authority over Iraq?

[madfloridian]

46. Here is some more info.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8845&news_iv_ctrl=1441

September 4, 2003)

ALBUQUERQUE, NM--Governor Dean believes that the most important step we can take in Iraq today is to internationalize the forces stationed there, particularly by bringing in Muslim and Arabic-speaking troops.

Specifically, the present mission is putting far too great a burden on the men and women of our armed forces. We need to rotate our National Guard and reserve forces out of Iraq and back home, and ensure that the length of the rotation of our forces is once again reduced to six months.

Such a reduction and rotation of US troops can only be achieved through an internalization of the occupying force in Iraq. Governor Dean has said repeatedly that the level of forces needs to be adequate to complete the mission, but the burden on our troops must be reduced with support from our allies....."

You may go here to find his stances on Iraq at this page.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign_iraq

If you feel so strongly about Dean, you don't have to vote for him nor do you have to support him.

[sangh0]

58. Your ignoring the issue, and Dean is being disingenous

Of course "most important step we can take in Iraq today is to internationalize the forces stationed there" but DEAN IS SILENT when it comes to detailing what it would take to get other nations to contribute their troops. Fortunately, the other nations are not as SILENT AS DEAN.

They want the US to hand military authority to the UN. Dean has said he is not in favor of doing that. So, aside from empty rhetorics about "internationalizing the forces", how is Dean going to get other nations to contribute troops when Dean has already voiced opposition to the one thing (hand military to the UN) that would get those nations to contribute troops?

[madfloridian]

66. I found this paragraph, but you are so angry, you won't care.

""Failure in Iraq is not an option. But just asking other countries to participate in an American-run operation that has gone so disastrously off track is not going to do. We need to ask our allies for more troops and trained Iraqi peacekeepers to secure the streets and find the killers. We need money to get the economy going and infrastructure repaired. And quite frankly we need more people with the skill and experience to help build a stable, secure, and representative nation in Iraq. Our allies and friends have the troops. They have the money. And they have the experience. But they are not going to put their troops at risk, and they are not going to ask their taxpayers to contribute to the effort, unless they have a commensurate say in how the operation there is run. It is time to bring NATO into Iraq, and it is high time to bring in the UN and to ask for Arabic speaking troops from places like Egypt and Morocco as well as other Muslim troops to help in this effort...."

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8856&news_iv_ctrl=1441

I have been one of the less strident voices on this forum. I have never seen such hatred and anger as I am seeing here lately. I would love to know the source of your anger towards me. Please feel free to look up my posts, and see if I am in attack mode.

This is America. You may vote for whom you wish. I am quite sure this statement won't satisfy you, but please quit yelling at me.
I am going to have to take a few days break from the hatred and irrationality here.

[sangh0]

Read it again

and tell me where Dean calls for handing MILITARY AUTHORITY over to the UN, as this is the ONE CONDITION the int'l community is asking for.

[clar]

57. Let me speak really slowly

AND LOUDLY

HE HAS SAID PRECISELY THAT REPEATEDLY.

[sangh0]

59. NO DEAN HAS NOT SAID THAT

Dean has only called for the hand over of CIVILIAN authority, not MILITARY authority

[w4rma]

63. U.N. troops will likely be led by U.N. leadership or their respective

countries' leadership.

U.S. troops will be led by U.S. leadership.

…
We need more troops. They're going to be foreign troops, as they should have been in the first place, not American troops. Ours need to come home.
…
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debate03/part2.html

As for *how* he'll convince other nations to help bring this mess to a close, I expect that alot will have changed between now and January 2005. Bush is going to have to make the concessions he should have made in the first place.

(this is a duplicate of post #56: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php#327593 )

[sangh0]

68. Wrong

Several nations have already said they won't send troops unless the US surrenders military authority to the UN. The UN resolution that Bush* has submitted for consideration places the intl troops under US authority, not their own authority.

Bush is going to have to make the concessions he should have made in the first place.

There is only one concession needed, as demonstrated by the concessions requested by those nations (India, Turkey, Australia, etc) who might be willing to send troops - Hand military authority to the UN.

Like Bush*, Dean is unwilling to do this.

[madfloridian]

70. Here.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8856&news_iv_ctrl=1441

"Failure in Iraq is not an option. But just asking other countries to participate in an American-run operation that has gone so disastrously off track is not going to do. We need to ask our allies for more troops and trained Iraqi peacekeepers to secure the streets and find the killers. We need money to get the economy going and infrastructure repaired. And quite frankly we need more people with the skill and experience to help build a stable, secure, and representative nation in Iraq. Our allies and friends have the troops. They have the money. And they have the experience. But they are not going to put their troops at risk, and they are not going to ask their taxpayers to contribute to the effort, unless they have a commensurate say in how the operation there is run. It is time to bring NATO into Iraq, and it is high time to bring in the UN and to ask for Arabic speaking troops from places like Egypt and Morocco as well as other Muslim troops to help in this effort."

[sangh0]

73. Other nations want the UN to have military authority over Iraq

Please tell me where Dean calls for handing MILITARY AUTHORITY over to the UN, as this is the ONE CONDITION the int'l community is asking for.

Unless Dean calls for this, there is no hope of getting the intl community to donate troops.

[w4rma]

80. See post #72

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=327341#327663

[sangh0]

85. post #72 is in a foreign language

I think

[kwolf68]

19. LOL

Ahh the beauty of it all. Of course you don't see anything. No matter how blatant the facts are, you have a vision of this man that won't allow you to be critical of him.

I'm not sure where it comes from. He's firey, he's passionate, he's confident and fairly well spoken. He appears as a political outsider...that night in shining armor...BUT

his views are too muddled. Of course, being in the political game I do expect to see Dean (like anyone) attemt to reconcile compromise, but his true convictions are what is muddle, not just pieces of policy that he would support or oppose (in other words, because he is for dumping in Yucca mountain doesn't make him a deranged anti-environmentalist).

Thing is...You do more spinning for him than he really needs or deserves. You were opposed to the war and so was Dean. Now Dean is for carrying it on. He has made absolutely NO credible statements about ENDING IT. Post it if it exists. He could do that at the same time he's saying to keep it going.

This damn war is just like most other wars waged...they serve to fuel the military-industrial complex, wave nationalism and jingosim, and to create instability in the world in the form of creating this big stinking geopolitical mess so that we can colonize more reaches of the earth.

I commend Dean for his original opposition to the war, but he sounds just like everyone else (cept Kucinich and Sharpton) as he tries to explain whatever position he NOW has.

[sangh0]

33. Well put

All Dean has to do is to publicly state that he thinks the US should hand all authority for Iraq over to the UN. IMO, and the opinion on many DU Dean supporters, that's the ONLY way we're going to get intl troops into Iraq.

To date, Dean has only called for CIVILIAN authority to be turned over to the UN, and NOT military authority

[deutsey]

38. Gosh, thanks for taking the scales from my eyes

You know nothing about me, so I would appreciate if you keep your amazing powers of psychological anaylsis to yourself.

I'm not spinning for anyone. I disagree with Dean on his support for bombing Afghanistan, although I think his reasons for supporting it were different from Bush's (which were more oil-soaked than anyone's). As I say in another post here, I think he's using common sense to try to deal with an amazingly complex and volatile situation that the poseur in the White House has mired us in. We shouldn't have gone in at all, but to leave now without some kind of power structure in place would lead to a larger humanitarian disaster than it's already encountering. I don't see how pulling out and leaving the country on its own right now is going to do any good at all.

I'm sorry he isn't able to come up with some magical solution that will bring peace to the region, or isn't enough of a purist to make you happy. This article, to me, is much ado about nothing.

[kwolf68]

39. And

In another post in this thread Dean says

"Well, as you know, I believed from the beginning that we should not go into Iraq without the United Nations as our partner."

When all along he was AGAINST THE WAR.


In that PBS interview he says we should not have gone in "without..." bla bla bla...

SO Dean wasn't against the war afterall? Or he was against the war last year...and now hes for it, but sorta?

LMAO...

BTW-I believe my powers of psychological analysis are dead on at press time.

[sangh0]

44. Yep. Didn't did NOT "oppose the war"

If the UN approved, like Kerry, he would not have had a problem attacking a nation on the basis on Bush*'s lies.

[kwolf68]

53. So

Why did the Dean people lead me to believe he was "the only one" to oppose the war?

I can find about ohhh...probably a zillion posts by Dean people spelling this out for me.

Now i find out he too was in favor of war. NOW that we have cleared that up, we can remove "peace" and "anti-war" from any sentences including Dean.

OK...Now that we know he sucks on the war issue, how is he on the other issues? Still in favor of the death penalty? Still getting A ratings from the NRA? Still suspect on environment?

He managed to alienate many on the LEFT, WHILE being a the Gov. of friggin Vermont...Certainly not the bastian of right-wing Conservatism.

[deutsey]

54. I want to see every single post of the zillions you say exist

:evilgrin:

And, my, you do grind axes ever so nicely!

[kwolf68]

74. There is no ax to grind

I have asked questions. Some have been answered in this thread, others will never be answered.

Ill have to get back to you on ALL zillion posts.

[deutsey]

47. Well, let's crucify him!!!!

I knew lots of people in the anti-war movement who said the same thing as Dean. They were opposed to the fact that Bush was violating international law with his pre-emptive invasion and bypassing the UN to "go it alone".

Again, to me, much ado about nothing.

And your posts certainly do suggest that you believe your analyses are dead on, but, you know, there are people who believe the earth is flat, too. :evilgrin:

[sangh0]

62. And those same people in the anti-war movement

think we should hand over ALL authority to the UN. Unfortunately, Dean disagrees. He wants the US to hold onto the military authority, which means the intl community will NOT send any forces there, because they would be seen as agents of the American Occupation if they did.

[w4rma]

13. It's no waffle. It's the same thing he's always been saying.

Do you think that only pacifists were against the Iraq-War? Do you consider Clark a pacifist? He was against the Iraq-war also. Sen. Byrd is no pacifist, he was opposed to the Iraq-war. Sen. Graham is definitely no pacifist (he's actually much more hawkish than Dean, Clark or Byrd) and he opposed the Iraq-war.

You can find details about his positions on Iraq here:
The Dean Campaign Iraq Truth Center
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign_iraq

[sangh0]

17. But now, the facts have changed

The invasion, which Dean opposed, is over. Even Dean's supporters agree that the key to getting int'l troops involved is to have the US hand over authority to the UN

Has Dean called for this?

[w4rma]

32. Yes. That is exactly Dean's position. (no change) (n/t)

[sangh0]

34. Not true.

Though Dean has called for a hand-over of civilian authority, Dean has NOT called for a hand-over of the military authority.

[w4rma]

40. Dean does not support U.N. leadership over U.S. soldiers. No.

…
We cannot have American troops serving under United Nations command. We have never done that before. But we can have American troops serving under American command, and it's very clear to me that in order to get the United Nations and NATO into Iraq, this president is going to have to go back to the very people he humiliated, our allies, on the way into Iraq, and hope that they will now agree with us that we were wrong to go--excuse me--that they will now agree with us that we need their help there. We were wrong to go in without the United Nations, now we need their help, and that's not a surprise.
…
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debate03/part2.html

[sangh0]

48. Then Dean doesn't want to "win the peace"

Do you really think we can win the peace without int'l troops? Do yo really think we can get intl troops in Iraq without handing military authority over to the UN?

If so, then please explain why those other nations would be willing to send their troops to a place where they will be seen as agents of an American Occupation.

[w4rma]

56. U.N. troops will likely be led by U.N. leadership or their respective

countries' leadership.

U.S. troops will be led by U.S. leadership.

…
We need more troops. They're going to be foreign troops, as they should have been in the first place, not American troops. Ours need to come home.
…
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debate03/part2.html

As for *how* he'll convince other nations to help bring this mess to a close, I expect that alot will have changed between now and January 2005. Bush is going to have to make the concessions he should have made in the first place.

[sangh0]

65. Wrong

Several nations have already said they won't send troops unless the US surrenders military authority to the UN. The UN resolution that Bush* has submitted for consideration places the intl troops under US authority, not their own authority.

Bush is going to have to make the concessions he should have made in the first place.

There is only one concession needed, as demonstrated by the concessions requested by those nations (India, Turkey, Australia, etc) who might be willing to send troops - Hand military authority to the UN.

Like Bush*, Dean is unwilling to do this.

[w4rma]

72. I have never read that anywhere. Please provide a source.

And you are correct on this point. Dean does not support giving the military authority over U.S. troops to other countries. Currently, I agree with Dean on this.

Bush refuses to give U.N. troops military authority over U.N. troops, though. He wants U.N. troops under U.S. authority. I expect that is what you read and have somehow mistaken this for what you are now saying, sangh0.

[sangh0]

75. A source for what?

Your post is very confusing. Please re-phrase

[w4rma]

82. Bush is the guy who won't let the UN lead their own troops, not Dean

I've provided sources that suggest that Dean will let the UN lead their own troops. You provide a source that says that the UN wants authority over US troops, also.

[sangh0]

86. Once again

the nations that might send troops have said they want the US to hand military authority over to the UN. Otherwise, they fear their troops will be seen as agents of an American occupation.

Like Bush*, Dean refuses to do this.

[no name no slogan]

21. However, Dean suckered in a lot of people

by his "anti-War" stance. Dean played up the fact that he was against this war. I certainly don't recall Dean going around the country trying do dispell the myth that he was "the" Anti-War Candidate™.

Because Dean is so cloudy on the issues, his supporters are able to project on him the things they want to believe he supports, NOT his actual beliefs and convictions.

Seriously, I visit his site, read his position statements, reread them, and half the time I STILL can't figure out just what the hell he's in favor of or opposed to. Before you make any snide remarks about my reading comprehension, I think I'm not alone in saying that I not the only one who's noticed this.

It's about time the bright light of truth shined on the good Doctor, and he's represented as he truly is.

[w4rma]

35. Dean's position is to get the U.N. peacekeepers in to replace U.S. troops.

…
RAY SUAREZ: And I'll begin tonight's questioning with Governor Dean. The United States is now trying to get help from the United Nations in the form of a resolution to internationalize the mission in Iraq. How much decision-making power can the United States share, while at the same time urging other countries to share the cost and share the risk of being there?

HOWARD DEAN: Well, as you know, I believed from the beginning that we should not go into Iraq without the United Nations as our partner. And in this situation, fortunately the president is finally beginning to see the light. We cannot do this by ourselves, we cannot have an American occupation and reconstruction. We have to have a reconstruction of Iraq with the United Nations, with NATO, and preferably with Muslim troops, particularly Arabic-speaking troops from our allies such as Egypt and Morocco.

We cannot have American troops serving under United Nations command. We have never done that before. But we can have American troops serving under American command, and it's very clear to me that in order to get the United Nations and NATO into Iraq, this president is going to have to go back to the very people he humiliated, our allies, on the way into Iraq, and hope that they will now agree with us that we were wrong to go--excuse me--that they will now agree with us that we need their help there. We were wrong to go in without the United Nations, now we need their help, and that's not a surprise.
…
Governor Dean?
(Speaking in Spanish)
We are spending more than $4 billion a month in Iraq. Do we send more troops?

HOWARD DEAN: Look, I think the most important aspect and the most important quality for any chief executive when they're executing foreign policy is judgment.

I supported the first war in Iraq because one of our allies was invaded, and I thought we had a responsibility to defend them. I supported the war in Afghanistan; 3,000 of our people were murdered. They would have murdered more if they could have. I thought we had a right to defend the United States of America. But in the case of Iraq, the president told us that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were about to make a deal or were making a deal. The truth is, there are more likely to be people from Al Qaeda bombing Iraqis and Americans today than there were before Saddam Hussein was kicked out.

Secondly, the president told us that Iraq was buying uranium from Africa. That wasn't true. The vice president told us that the Iraqis were about to get atomic weapons. That turned out not to be true. The secretary of defense told us he knew exactly where the weapons of mass destruction were, right around Tikrit and Baghdad. That turned out to be false as well.

As commander in chief of the United States military, I will never hesitate to send troops anywhere in the world to defend the United States of America. But as commander in chief of the United States military I will never send our sons and daughters and our brothers and sisters to a foreign country in harm's way without telling the truth to the American people about why they're going there. And that judgment needs to be made first, not afterwards.

We need more troops. They're going to be foreign troops, as they should have been in the first place, not American troops. Ours need to come home.
…
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debate03/part2.html

[sangh0]

71. But Dean doesn't say how he'd get that done

Please tell me where Dean calls for handing MILITARY AUTHORITY over to the UN, as this is the ONE CONDITION the int'l community is asking for beofre it sends it's troops to Iraq

[w4rma]

84. Bush is the guy who won't let the UN lead their own troops, not Dean

I've provided sources that suggest that Dean will let the UN lead their own troops.

[sangh0]

89. The UN has no troops

You are getting close to unreasonable. Please try to say what you mean, and not whatever first comes to mind.

The itnl community wants the US to relinquish it's military authority because if we don't, the Iraqis will view ALL soldiers as agents of an American occupation.

France has said they want us out within a month. See LBN

[ieoeja]

43. I do

I've heard him say on any number of occasions that he was in favor of the war in Afghanistan but thought Iraq was a mistake.

[newsguyatl]

18. god,

why must there be so many fucking IDIOTS on this site?


you KNOW who you are.


go walk off a steep cliff or something...

[no name no slogan]

36. Yes, a Deanie makes a REASONED ARGUMENT®

Thank Allah you didn't resort to calling all of us who question Dean's positions and statements, like "fucking IDIOTS".

Now I'll add a comment: to get that ridiculous looking constipated smirk off his face, Doctor Dean should :hurts:

[madfloridian]

20. Oh, wait! This is about those who think we should just get out now.

If so, then say so. Don't put it all on Dean. I happen to think we can not.

This business about jumping on each other's candidates is out of control, and it is turning DU into a joke.

[no name no slogan]

29. It's called "debate" and "a free exchange of ideas"

Who the hell cares if a candidate gets dumped on? As long as the attacks don't get personal against individual posters, who the hell cares???

Critical analysis of a candidate's positions and statements is not "bashing". It's what seperates humans from chimps.

[kwolf68]

31. No one has jumped on Dean

We are critically analyzing him. As a Kerry supporter I have belabored his faulty decision to give Chimp unconstitutional authorization to wage war. I didn't like it and it burns me up.

I am tired of Dean's muddled comments, and the fact while we basically undress every other candidate on these forums as soon as legit questions about Dean are brought in, the jackals are out en masse with pitchforks to slay the evil beast who dare defile the political messiah.

I have not said anything personal about Dean. I believe his positions - in some instances- are hypocritical BS. And ya know what...Kerry has a few (at least one) as well.

Many of these Dean people aren't acting rationally. I guess I can't blame them...they are like me that they want SOOOOOOO much to have a President we can be proud of. They believe in their hearts Dean is that guy. I don't believe that and I will point out reasons why.

[montanacowboy]

41. I am a Dean Supporter

and have been since the get go...but he has been meeting with Terry McAuliffe - and that worries me, so I will be watching Dean.

[MGKrebs]

45. Is it worth it? Do you care? OK, here goes:

I don't think Dean is trying to be the "peace candidate". He was against going to war with Iraq under the circumstances that existed at that moment.

The fact is, we DID go to war, we ARE there, and we have to deal with it. I was against going to war too. But my opinion is that it would be disastrous to just walk away now. There would be no central leadership, and terrorists and thugs could, and very likely would, gain a lot of control. This is my perception of Dean's position as well.

Not only that, what Dean (or anybody else would do as President) is likely different that what Bush* will do. It is highly unlikely that Bush* will be able to get any significant help from other countries. It is an almost unbearable dilemma for me: we can't leave, but everyday things get worse over there. But if we leave, it gets worse yet, and worse faster. So, in order to protect our people and try to exert some semblance of order in Iraq, we may need to add troops (ours or anybodys we can get) in the short term. Unfortunate, but unavoidable. The children currently in charge have made a mess.

This is different from what a candidate would do once they become President. Dean in particular seems to think that he would be able to get the UN and other countries involved. This would allow us a much reduced role. That is not hypocritical, or waffling. It is consistent reactions to different situations.


This has been on Dean's website since April.

Wednesday April 9, 2003

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Governor Howard Dean, M.D., called for United Nations cooperation in helping rebuild Iraq.

"We knew from the outset we could win this war without much help from others. But we cannot win the peace by continuing to go it alone," Governor Dean said. "Our goal should be what the Administration has promised -- an Iraq that is stable, self-sufficient, whole and free. Our strategy to achieve that goal should be based on a partnership with three sides -- U.S., international, and Iraqi -- and a program that begins with seven basic points."

Those points are:

A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.
Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.
The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.
The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.
Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.
A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.
A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.
"We must hold the Administration to its promises before the war, and create a world after the war that is safer, more democratic, and more united in winning the larger struggle against terrorism and the forces that breed it," Governor Dean said.

"That is, after all, now much more than a national security objective," he added. "It is a declaration of national purpose, written in the blood of our troops, and of the innocent on all sides who have perished."

[deutsey]

52. You're wasting your time...

Dean's not a purist and, thus, must be labeled an infidel and crushed underfoot. :evilfrown:

Seriously, thanks for the post.

[kwolf68]

69. LMAO

A purist? You think I agree with any of these guys on everything?

How about someone NOT receiving A+ from one of the most rabid right-wing organizations in America.

The NRA isn't just about guns, they were the whack jobs who incited their masses of drones to "rise up" upon hearing about Waco and Ruby Ridge. They dedicated countless articles on the Randy Weaver episode illustrating what happens when left wingers get control of government.

This was just the beginning boys and girls...Next up, they'll come to swipe your 4'10 shotgun so you can't kill songbirds anymore.

These people support Dean 100%. That means Democrats (you know those people who want Democrats in Government) should question this guy.

[kwolf68]

61. Fair enough

So I suppose your brethren will now back off on Kerry for "supporting" the war?

The ONE THING (the war vote) you people have ripped into Kerry about has been that war vote. I maintain on nearly every issue other than that Kerry is vastly superior (although I must confess I like Deans look better...he seems more casual, Kerry too rigid, not sure how esplain it)....

So, Kerry is better than Dean on this one issue...In fact, I have seen some Dean people say they would not support Kerry because of this.

Now that YOU PEOPLE have shown me that going to war could have had some justification (if we had friends and all that kind of groovy stuff), then Kerry's position to support Chimpmonkey isn't as bad anymore.

So we are all in agreement? There are only two anti-war candidates and neither of them will be elected.

Now that we have that crap out of the way, lets enjoy the nomination process.

[kwolf68]

64. Another thing about the grand man

I remember in one of the early debates, Kucinich talked about reducing the Pentagon Budget...

Dean outright opposed that. SO...in the very least Dean wants to keep spending those billions on every stupid little boondoggle that is in place over there.

[sangh0]

78. There is one problem with that

Though Dean is right to call for international support, the intl community has made it clear that they want the US to hand military authority over to the UN before they contribute troops. They are concerned that if they went under US military authority, the Iraqis would view them as agents of an American occupation.

So, while it is good that Dean is calling for intl support, it would be nice if the man who hopes to be our President someday would offer a detailed plan for getting the intl community to send troops. It's easy to say "They should help us". It's a lot harder to explain in detail what it takes to get that cooperation.

[madfloridian]

50. Here is some info from his site.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8845&news_iv_ctrl=1441

September 4, 2003)

ALBUQUERQUE, NM--Governor Dean believes that the most important step we can take in Iraq today is to internationalize the forces stationed there, particularly by bringing in Muslim and Arabic-speaking troops.

Specifically, the present mission is putting far too great a burden on the men and women of our armed forces. We need to rotate our National Guard and reserve forces out of Iraq and back home, and ensure that the length of the rotation of our forces is once again reduced to six months.

Such a reduction and rotation of US troops can only be achieved through an internalization of the occupying force in Iraq. Governor Dean has said repeatedly that the level of forces needs to be adequate to complete the mission, but the burden on our troops must be reduced with support from our allies....."

[SonofMass]

77. No, but he definately has been waffling on Belguim..

.

[kwolf68]

79. SERIOUSLY...I do want to apologize to the Dean supporters

This thread has been hot and I don't mean to offend any of you. Please accept my apologies for anything I said any of you took offense to.

I don't mean to sound mean, or ANTI-Dean, because I really am not.

So I'd like to continue this exchange and I may have to apologize again in another few posts. :-)

[haymaker]

87. More of the same shit,

:boring:

[Uzybone]

88. More tripe

please focus on the prize.

[janekat]

90. of course he is - he HAS to

Be realistic.

When are people going to realize - this is a campaign - it's a POLITICAL CONTEST. He's going to have to start moving more towards the center if he wants to WIN.

He's NOT running for "King of the Progressives." He's running to be leader of the ENTIRE country.

He's won over his base and now he's got to start working on gathering votes from moderates. If he doesn't do this he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell.

Be braced to hear more and more of this sort of thing.

People SAY a lot of things during a campaign. You have look at their record AND at what they do.

AND if Kuchinich was in the lead and had a real chance to win - he'd do the SAME thing.

[kwolf68]

91. Running to the center

LMGDMFAO...He ran crashing through the center and left a big hole.

Getting A+ from the National Radical Association is "moving to the center?"

What happens when someone is to the right? Do they wear a stupid little mustache and go around chanting sieg heil?

Plus, why would he need to "run to the center" DURING the Democratic campaign? If this were the national election you'd have some credibility with that comment, but no way in the party primaries...No reason too.

Joe already has the right-wing Dems in tow.

[WaterDog]

97. The NRA rating

is given simply because he didn't do anything to piss them off. He didn't do anything to get that rating either. He simply supports the federal laws and state's rights to make their own laws. If he wasn't governor of Vermont where they don't need more gun laws, he wouldn't have gotten that rating. As far as getting their support or endorsement, you really don't know what you are talking about, because he doesn't have it.

You really are way off base here. And what's the "apology" post above for?
:wtf:

[Evanstondem]

96. Dean is Not Waffling on Iraq

I'm a Dean supporter who agrees with Dean and not Kucinich on this. We shouldn't pull out now that W and his henchman have turned Iraq into a terrorist haven. The goal should be to bring in the UN and International troops so that most of ours can come home, but that isn't going to happen for a while.