Slate: How Anti-War Is Dean, Really? (interesting June, 2002 quote)

[Karmadillo]

This is written by Mickey Kaus, so one might want to take it with a grain of salt (well, everything should be taken with a grain of salt, but with Kaus and Saletan types, maybe an extra grain or two is in order). I think the Dean quote below plus his stated support for the Biden-Lugar resolution make him much less anti-war than the media like to portray him, but I also think not everyone will agree with me. So it goes.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091291/

Hello! Opposition Researchers! Here's a paragraph from a David Broder column dated June 30, 2002:

He had been asked where he would find fault with President Bush, and he replied, "As far as domestic policy is concerned, I can't think of anything he's done that I agree with." He ticked off a list of Bush "outrages," ranging from an education bill he called the "largest unfunded mandate in history" to Bush's "appointment of ideologues to the courts." Heads were nodding in agreement. And then he added, almost as a throwaway line, "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."

The "he" in question was Gov. Howard Dean, who is now on the verge of winning the Democratic nomination by virtue of his angry opposition to the war in Iraq. But Dean wasn't showing much of that anger at the end of June, 2002. In fact, Broder's piece chides Dean for failing to pay sufficient heed to the anti-war sentiments then cropping up on the Democratic left. (At the time, Dean's big anti-Bush issues were health insurance and tax cuts).

There are two interpretations of Dean's transformation from a candidate who said Bush was doing "a good job on the war on terrorism" to the Howard Dean most voters think they know today. One, presented forcefully in Monday's Robert Kagan WaPo op-ed, is that Dean sincerely supported the overall war on terror but thought the Iraq invasion was a misstep, the "wrong war at the wrong time." In June 30, 2002, after all, the military strike against Hussein was more than half a year away.

But there's a second, more troubling interpretation, which is that Dean shifted to a strong anti-war position not because of Bush's Iraq actions, but because he saw that that was where the Democratic party's activist base wanted him to go. In June 30, 2002, after all, it wasn't very hard to see the Iraq conflict looming on the horizon. President Bush had already included Iraq in his "axis of evil." Vice-President Cheney had toured the Middle East to drum up support for an effort to topple Saddam. On June 17, 2002--two weeks before Dean praised Bush's "good job"--former President Clinton delivered a speech criticizing Bush for concentrating on Iraq instead of the Israeli-Palestinian issue...

more...

[killbotfactory]

1. Third interperetation:

Bush took the focus away from terrorism and put the emphasis on a country and dictator that is only tangently related to the war on terrorism, and took the focus off of Afghanistan, which Dean has always clearly said he supported, letting warlords run loose and reconstruction efforts dwindle.

That might have an impact on Dean's opinion.

[NewJeffCT]

2. I'm not a Dean supporter

Or a Dean basher, but there is a difference between what we did in Afghanistan to find bin Laden and to take out the Taliban than it was in Iraq. Most of the world and the UN supported our going into Afghanistan... hardly anybody supported us going in to Iraq. I believe Dean said he supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

[RetroLounge]

3. Third Interpretation

Mickey Kaus is a Whore...

4. Amerika

Anyone who is truly anti-war &/or anti-military has no chance in hell of getting elected in the United States.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. Dean is winning on his personality

is the conclusion I have drawn now that everyone admits he is not really anti-war.

[truthspeaker]

6. He never claimed to be anti-war

He always said he opposed this specific war in Iraq at this time because the evidence for WMDs and a threat to the US wasn't there.

[TLM]

16. DO you really beleive all Dean supporters are just morons...

who mistakenly thought Dean was an anti-war pacifist?


Or is it possible we knew his positions, and liked them, and that's why we support him?

Dean never once calimed to be an anti-ar pacifist. He was anti-war without just cause, and said over and over that Bush had not made the case for this war.

[Forkboy]

19. everyone knew he wasn't anti-war to start with

[Hep]

23. You MUST be right

Because that's about how intelligent we all are. Boy you hit the nail right on the head.

[Hep]

7. Take it with a grain of salt

but never hesitate to post it. Dean critics: We distort, YOU take the salt.

[phirili]

8. Dean can do anything - just vote for him - he is Dean

[Hep]

10. Was there a point there?

Any confusion you have about the specifics of any of the planks on his platform can be cleared up. Feel free to ask me anything.

[sangh0]

15. Which planks will Dean flip-flop on

once he "re-evaluates" the "science"?

[blm]

9. How many antiKerry Kaus articles have Deanies posted?

Puhleeze. Cry me a river. Kaus has been dumping on Kerry for over a year to the glee of Deanies.

[Hep]

11. How many have I posted?

ZERO

You look like an ant from the high road.

[Karmadillo]

12. What were the distortions in the article? Thanks. n/t

n/t

[Hep]

14. Here you go:

First let me say that it's just hilarious how Dean Critics will pal up with the most insidious and disingenuous columnists in their search for crap on Dean. I mean, Kaus called you out on it and you still post it! Kinda like how Mediawhoresonline is always on point, but we'll quote those very whores if they support our desire to OPPOSE candidates. Anyway,

The "he" in question was Gov. Howard Dean, who is now on the verge of winning the Democratic nomination by virtue of his angry opposition to the war in Iraq.

His opposition to the war is angry, but what puts him on the verge is OUR being angry. He can be as angry as he wants, but if he isn't reflecting our views he doesn't get our support. Also, his ability to organize and inspire people like me (say it with me, STUPID BRAINWASHED people, right?) has a lot to do with his success.

Also, the article fails to adequately distinguish between the invasion of afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. Dean supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and he doesn't hesitate to say it. Dean isn't ANTI-WAR. He never claimed to be.

So the whole article as you posted it is a lie. There was no transformation. It's called objectivity.

Am I the only one who remembers June of 2002?

[blm]

27. July 2002: Dean won't criticize commander-in-chief at time of war...

when it's Gore and Kerry who are critical of Bush's strategy.

Dean, July 2002:

Russert plays clips of Gore and Kerry criticizing Bush on military strategy:

 MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.
       
       MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: I’ve seen others criticize the president. I think it’s very easy to second-guess the
       commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don’t choose to engage in doing that.

[Cocoa]

13. I've thought this about Dean

but reading this coming from a right wing whore forces me to rethink it.

[TLM]

18. The thing to keep in mind is they want you to think

that you can only be 100% anti-any war all the time ever... or 100% pro-any war all the time ever.


So if Dean supported action in afganistan, then he must have changed his position to not support actions in Iraq. That's the lie.

Dean was never anti-any war. He was against Iraq because there was no justification fo rhte invasion. He supported continuing the policy of containment, inspection, and disarming by the UN.

[Cocoa]

20. one problem, however...

some Dean supporters, not you, but others, seem to see Dean as a pacifist, and they use pacifist rhetoric when criticizing Dean opponents who voted for the IWR. Kucinich can get away with this, but coming from Dean supporters it's just not honest, imo.

[Hep]

22. In some cases not honest

and in some cases misguided. I wish I could say you're wrong, but alas, I can't.

[blm]

24. THANKYOU. My beef with Dean was NOT that he was for Biden-Lugar

but that he pretended as if he was solidly antiwar while accusing others who were closer to his position of being prowar. Most of his supporters pushed that same meme.

I'll let Kerry take hits from Kucinich supporters on that but draw the line at Dean supporters. It's called integrity.

[blm]

25. THANKYOU. My beef with Dean was NOT that he was for Biden-Lugar

but that he pretended as if he was solidly antiwar while accusing others who were closer to his position of being prowar. Most of his supporters pushed that same meme.

I'll let Kerry take hits from Kucinich supporters on Iraq but draw the line at Dean supporters. It's called integrity.

[ieoeja]

17. Is Dean alone?

I supported the action in Afghanistan wholeheartedly. My only problems there were:

1. What the Taliban inflicted on the women of Afghanistan should have been stopped years earlier. And, oddly enough, during all those years it was LIBERAL organizations that called for intervention in Afghanistan.

2. Practically the entire world offered to back us up. Bush did not merely tell them we would go it alone, but was unaccountably undiplomatic and insulting in how he went about it.

3. Bush ultimately chickened out, opting to minimize US losses by relying on locally hired mercenaries thereby allowing bin Laden and much of both al Qaeda and the Taliban to escape.


Our invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, was both unjustified and just plain stupid. So like Dean (and many more people I know) I opposed the war in Iraq, but fully supported our action in Afghanistan. In fact, I am still unhappy that we did not do more in Afghanistan.

[Rose Siding]

21. You'd have to equate Sept 11/terrorism with saddam/Iraq invasion

..to find any inconsistancy.

I don't and from what I've read, Dean never had.

[mzmolly]

26. Did you say "interesting June, 2002 quote"???

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........

[Bertrand]

28. The Dean quote from Salon is more disturbing, i think

"as I've said about eight times today," he 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.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html