Josh Marshall on Dean's waffling on the war

[kstewart33]

Interesting post that makes a very wise request. An excerpt:

"Now, my point is not to say that Dean was some sort of war-hawk. Clearly, he was no friend of the president's policy. But then neither was John Kerry, and certainly not Wes Clark. So let's drop this idea that support for war under some circumstances and not others is some sort of waffling or dodge. Because if it is, then Dean isn't in the clear either."

For more see:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

[EagleEye]

1. Misleading Headline

Your headline is misleading. Josh specifically says Dean was not waffling. Second, Dean's statement makes perfect sense. The very least those in Congress could have required is for the President to explicitly state how Sadaam was a threat. They never even required that. Face facts, the Dems in Congress caved to the president out of political expedience. Gephardt lead the way. Perhaps that is the benefit to a presidential candidate of not being in congress. Perhaps that's why those in Congress hardly ever win the nomination. In any event, Dean was a consistant opponent of the War. He saw through the smoke and realized there was no fire. Why didn't the others?

[sandnsea]

7. Did you read the article?

"In that same Face the Nation interview, when asked whether there were conditions under which he might favor war, Dean said ...

"My question is not that we may not have to go into Iraq. We may very well have to go into Iraq..."

"So let's drop this idea that support for war under some circumstances and not others is some sort of waffling or dodge. Because if it is, then Dean isn't in the clear either..."

The whole point of the article is that Dean is disengenuous when he says he opposed the war from the beginning. His comments clearly show that he wasn't. How can you read the words in that article and then turn around and say he was against the war from the beginning? It is absolutely mind boggling.

[Karmadillo]

10. Here's a quote where Dean doesn't seem quite so anti-war

The quote is from a pro-Dean blog discussing the Salon profile. Because the profile is part Salon's premium service, I can't confirm it was actually in the article. I assume it is since it's been frequently posted on DU without being rejected as a fabrication.

http://www.howardsmusings.com/2003/02/20/salon_on_the_campaign_trail_with_the_unbush.html

"<A>s I've said about eight times today," <Dean> says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

[Racenut20]

2. The only one I recall being against the war was Senator Graham

[sandnsea]

5. No, Kucinich

Graham was not for dealing with Iraq right now. He had and has other countries in mind. Don't forget, he's the one that said to lob a few missiles into Syria.

Kucinich is the consistent anti-war candidate. And Sharpton and Braun.

[liberalnurse]

6. There was a post here earlier

that linked Deans statement against the war back in September 2002.
Kucinich was also against the war.

[sandnsea]

9. Did you read the article?

His words are right in it. He did not oppose the war, he only opposed the way Bush was going about it. How do you take these words and twist them into being anti-war?

"My question is not that we may not have to go into Iraq. We may very well have to go into Iraq. What is the rush? Why can't we take the time to get our allies on board? Why do we have to do everything in a unilateral way?
...

My problem is not whether we're going to end up in Iraq or not. Saddam Hussein appears to be doing everything he can to make sure we do go into Iraq. My problem is, it is important to bring in our allies."

[Justice]

3. Good Analysis of Dean's Comments

I am so sick of DUers making the republican arguments. Is not that simple. I've had this discussion many times this week at work.

We muddle the issue. As citizens of this country we OUGHT to be able to rely on the president's words and those of his people regarding the "evidence" to support military action. That reliance comes from a belief in our democracy, a belief in the institution of the presidency.

Many of us on DU did not think Bush is worthy of the presidency, of the institution. We rejected the words of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice outright because we rejected the individual - not the institution. Many other Americans supported Bush et al because they believed their president. They might never admit a president would lie to them - they believe in the institution. We cannot just stand up and say -- nah nah nah we were right he lied - you (american voter) were wrong to trust the guy.

I don't need americans to acknowledge privately or publicly that Bush lied. I only need them to recognize that Bush et al cannot handle the occupation and needs to be replaced with someone who can.

My point is this - I believe 100% Bush needs to go because he is a creep. He betrayed the institution, the democracy by lying - not just because he went to war and is losing the "occupation" aka war.
However, many Americans swing voters) will probably vote against him because he is losing in Iraq - not because he lied. Some of them will get it/believe that he lied. Most of them will not get it - they will only get that people are dying and things are bad.

I want a candidate who can articulate how he would handle the occupation and reconstruction - the exit strategy. This candidate is the winning candidate in my view

I DON'T want candidates to have a pissing contest with each other about who stood up and said what when - cuz it wasn't that simple.

[kstewart33]

4. Great post!

I agree with you. The Iraq situation was and is not that simple. I support Clark because he is the only candidate that has substantial experience in diplomacy, working with several nations. He can lead us out of the Iraq mess.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. I support Kerry for the same reasons. nt

[sandnsea]

12. I think Clark could

But so could Kerry. And I know Kerry's position on traditional Democratic issues, I don't have to wonder what he'll really do if he were elected President. All I have to do is look at his 20 year record in protecting everybody's rights.

[Seneca]

11. I am not sure Dean has 'it'

The man looks and sounds uncomfortable in his own shoes. I hear lots of "well, wait until more Americans learn about him, hear him, see him, etc.". They will, and they will get the same bad vibe from him that the most of the rest of us get when we see or hear him. Watching Dean squirm his way through an interview? Gads!

I have tried and tried giving Dean plenty of chances, but he has not won my heart or my mind. I haven't quit giving him chances, but the liklihood of me changing my mind about him decreases by the day.

Plus, even if he should be president - given that there is a chasm between his intellect and readiness compared to the simian now in power - that doesn't mean he will be. Adlai Stevenson and George McGovern were both smart and honest - and look what happened there.

It is far too soon to anoint Dean, Clark, or ANY of them.

I'd like to wait until at least half the primaries are over before I make any rash predictions.

I will vote for Dean if he gets the nod, but it will be a vote against Bush more than a vote for Dean.

[dsc]

13. Please tell me when McGovern and Stevenson

were President. Did you mean nominee? Also whatever else we can say about Nixon he wasn't lacking in intellectual prowess or preperation for the Presidency. He was certainly a crook but he was a very hard working, smart crook.

[Seneca]

14. did you read my post?

I was talking STRICTLY in nominee mode. About who could/should be president. I was comparing Dean as a candidate to past candidates, especially UNsuccessful nominees. Where did I say McGovern or Stevenson were ever president? :D I said they were held up as people who 'should' have been. That is all. "Look what happened there" was a commentary on how they were trounced at the polls.

I held them up as examples of two people enthusiastically embraced by their base, and didn't even come close to winning nationally.

As far As Nixon, if you check a post on another thread ("Why won't the Repubs run somebody smart?" or something like that) I wrote even earlier than the one above, saying quite concretely that Nixon was the last smart Republican to win the presidency.

Please, if you are hungry to smack down my posts, read what I say first, and stay on topic. Nixon wasn't even the issue here. :-)

[IggleDoer]

15. Bottom line: If you believe what the Repubicans were saying then

... you would support the war, AT THAT TIME. There was no reason to believe that the Repubicans were lying or, at minimum, implying! After all, they tout themselves as the honorable party.

If you did some independent investigation (as no one in Congress has the where-with-all or the time to do) you'd vote against the war at that time. However, no one did because they trusted the poppycock they were being fed. They had to - no real options then.

Besides the resolution they voted for supported going to the UN. When the Repubicans went to war because it was in the imminent interest of national security, they were lying to Congress. Why doesn't anyone bring up charges?? Because the Repubicans still own Congress?

[hey2370]

16. Jeebus save us from cowards

Scared that Dean is "unelectable"? If enough people vote for him, he will be elected. It really is that simple.

Clark has shown NOTHING as a candidate. Right now he looks like all resume, no skills. He has definitely shown NOTHING that merits the kind of buzz and support he is generating here.

Kerry looks and talks as if he were recently raised from the grave, plus he voted to give Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq - and he STILL defends it! (He could just say, "My bad..", but no...)

Who else in this bunch is "electable"?

[HPLeft]

17. Excellent Points

Dean had managed to convince the faithful that he's as pure as the driven snow in this area, but his words will come back to haunt him - as they should.

Kucinich was 100% against this war from the start, and I'll take whoever's word that Graham was (since I don't remember taking note of his position one way or another at the time - or Braun's).

But Dean is definitely trying to have things both ways. Some proper media scrutiny is in order here.

[Karmadillo]

18. Kick

n/t

[DrBB]

19. Matter of fact, he sounds a LOT LIKE CLARK

Dean:

My problem is not whether we're going to end up in Iraq or not. Saddam Hussein appears to be doing everything he can to make sure we do go into Iraq. My problem is, it is important to bring in our allies.

Clark (Feb. 2003)

General Wesley Clark, a former Nato supreme commander and a potential Democratic candidate for president, told a Meet the Press programme on NBC that Saddam Hussein was "finished" and having gone so far, the US could not change its plans to remove him.
 
"We are at a turning point in America's history. We are about to embark on an operation that is going to put us in a colonial position in the Middle East following Britain."
 
It is a huge change for the American people and what this country stands for, he said.
 
The Bush administration, he said, has not respected its allies and that is why it finds itself without the support of many Nato allies and even in those countries prepared to support the US, public opinion is against the war. Iraq, could have been contained without war, he said.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=37738538

Both of them sound--excuse me for breaking the screaming zealot-purist decorum that now predominates on DU--like they're trying to speak honestly and realistically to the issue. They point out what is so fucked about the Bush position while admitting that there are facts on the ground that have to be confronted. Also known as Bush's most hated term: nuance. Something I USED to think DUers held in some esteem.

Josh Marshall:

Now, my point is not to say that Dean was some sort of war-hawk. Clearly, he was no friend of the president's policy. But then neither was John Kerry, and certainly not Wes Clark. So let's drop this idea that support for war under some circumstances and not others is some sort of waffling or dodge. Because if it is, then Dean isn't in the clear either.

Damn right and thanks, Josh.

And now, back to the screaming vitriolic bash fest, already in progress....