Josh Marshall on Dean's Iraq stance

[ModerateMiddle]

snip to end...

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.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0303.html#092003302am

Personally, I think it's exceptionally hypocritical for Dean to accuse particularly Kerry for having "waffled" on Iraq, given Dean's various positions over time. Kerry has been consistent in his criticism of the WAY Bush handled the responsibility he was given by Congress.

Dean didn't have to cast a vote at any point. THAT is the only difference.

[joeybee12]

1. Josh Marshall is a Washington insider

He'll spin his stories to make Kerry and Gephardt look good, because they're his sources. They pat his back, he past their's.

I still read him, but read him now critically keeping this in mind.

Besides, the anger at Kerry is not simply his support, but his extreme criticism over the resolution BEFORE he ends up voting for it. People felt betrayed.

[Brucey]

2. Good points. Thanks.

[DJcairo]

3. One mintue Deaniacs like Marshall the next minute they don't

ahhh, I love waffles!

[joeybee12]

4. Hey--how did you come to THAT conclusion?

I think Marshall usually makes a lot of good points--but that just because I don't agree with him 100% doesn't make me fickle--it makes me a critical reader.

You should read EVERYTHING critically--all journalists and pundits have their own agenda--there is not one out there whose writing is NOT influenced by his or her personal beliefs, agendas, and WHO THEIR FRIENDS ARE IN WASHINGTON AND WHO THIER SOURCES ARE.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[deutsey]

19. "Go get a job"?

What kind of talk is that?

:shrug:

[blm]

11. That extreme criticism helped get a better resolution

than the one Bush wanted.

Unless, of course, you wish Kerry did the political thing and just voted no and never bothered to negotiate for the better deal, although I'm sure that Iran and Syria would not agree with you.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Because you can't dispute his facts, you call him "a Washington insider"

Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)

Definition:

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself.
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php

[DemDogs]

31. Exactly

and it is getting really tiresome. Josh Marshall is one of the most thoughtful sources out there. Unless he attacks Dean and then he has a fatal flaw -- insider, repug, provocateur, etc.

[blm]

38. That's how they play.

.

[tsipple]

6. Marshall Forgot One Thing: The Vote!

In all that long blog text, I couldn't find an answer to a simple question: How did (or would have) the candidate voted on the Iraq Resolution? Simple question. Now let me answer it, even if Marshall did not.

Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, and Edwards voted YEA.

Graham and Kucinich voted NEA.

Dean, Braun, and Sharpton said, contemporaneously and subsequently, they would vote NEA. (They also said Saddam is and was a bad guy, which goes to Marshall's point.)

Clark first said (a couple days ago) he would have voted YEA, then he said (yesterday) he would have voted NEA.

As Robert Byrd pointed out, that's the Constitutional question here. YEA or NEA. "Maybe" wasn't a choice, no matter how hard politicians try to spin it. That's why we pay Congressmen the "big bucks," so to Constitutionally speak, as the Founders intended. They have to take their votes to voters this election.

There are clear differences between the candidates on this issue.

[ModerateMiddle]

7. Clear differences

between Kucinich and the others. There is definitely NOT a clear difference between Dean and the folks who voted yea. The ONLY clear difference is that, again, Dean did not have to be held to a position at one point in history. He is free, yet again, to "evolve" without anyone questioning wherever he is on any particular day.

[tsipple]

17. And Graham?

Graham also voted against the Iraq Resolution.

Dean said then and now he would have voted against.

Kerry voted for it.

Deny all you want, but thems the facts.

[no name no slogan]

29. Yes, and also no

Graham voted against the resolution because it didn't go "far enough"-- he wanted it to include additional provisions for attacking nations that harbor "terrorist groups"-- which is a VERY gray area.

Dean said in February 2003 that he wouldn't attack Iraq JUST YET, because he wanted a sixty-day waiting period for Saddam to "disarm". After this 60-day wait, he was all for invading Iraq. Eventually, after a US "victory" seemed certain, did he commit to his anti-Iraq War stance.

Kucinich, OTOH, led the opposition against the Iraq War in the House of Representatives. He started with a handful of Reps opposed to the war, and managed to convince nearly 2/3ds of the Dems to vote against the resolution.

Kucinich is the only candidate who voted AGAINST the IWR. He's also the only candidate who voted AGAINST BUSH's $87bil package for his Haliburton pals. He's also one of the few candidates whose DEMANDING that US GETS OUT OF IRAQ and turns over the administration to the UN-- NOT NATO, NOT some "coalition of the willing", but the most credible international body that exists.

We need to face facts: there will not be peace in Iraq until the US PULLS OUT OF IRAQ. The Iraqis treat our troops like an occupying army, and will continue resistance in any way they can.

[sandnsea]

9. Dean forgot one thing: His Words!

Apparently all his supporters are willing to forget them too.

[DemDogs]

40. Dean did not have to vote: clear difference

And you can lamely attack Marshall or anyone who points out Dean's waffling but it doesn't change the facts.

[ludwigb]

12. My reply to Josh Marshall

I agree that Josh is overlooking how crucial IWR was and I sent him this email.


Josh,

As a frequent reader and fan of TPM, I feel compelled to comment on your latest post on Dean. My quarrel with your post is less with its substance as with its tone. It seems to me that you are suggesting that since Dean, like Kerry, would have supported the war under certain circumstances, his opposition is less strident as his supporters make it out to be. Although your point is of course correct, I think it distracts from the larger reason why people prefer Dean to Kerry. The reason Dean's position on Iraq is seen as more reasonable and consistent than Kerry's by the antiwar left has to do almost entirely with the IWR, rather than whether a war on Iraq could ultimately be justified. In my opinion, the way each man voted is not only indicative of the kind of political courage each politician showed at this crucial moment, but it is also indicative of the style of campaign each man is running. I think Dean's vote against this resolution and his clear justification for doing so displays the guts, integrity, and moral courage that John Kerry seems to lack. And I think in the end Democratic voters percieve this, which is precisely why Kerry's campaign is going nowhere. Kerry is seen as an equivocator and Dean is seen as a straight talker---for good reason!

Kerry's reasons why he voted for the IWR are of course intellectually understandable, but as Eric Alterman puts it, "not exactly compelling". He says he voted for the resolution in good faith and believed Democratic support would help shore up UN support. But the problem is this--if he believed that going in without the support of the UN would be a mistake (and he did say this, before the war), why not express that sentiment by voting against authorizing force before a broader UN resolution could be obtained? More importantly, why did he vote to authorize violent force before he believed force was necessary? Couldn't he have simply said that though he supported ridding Saddam of WMD, it was simply too early in the game to be authorizing violent action? As far as I'm concerned, that was my position, that was Dean's position, that was the position of most of us opposed to the war at that time. In short, Kerry was wrong to authorize force because authorizing force might be a good diplomatic tool. The authorization of violence is no rhetorical game, especially when we have a president that we simply can't trust.

I might add that it is perfectly possible that the UN might have seen compelling evidence that Saddam had WMD and still refused to act. Though I must admit I probably would have still opposed the use of force until all possible options were exhausted, I respect those, like you and Howard Dean, that say they would have supported a unilateral US action if the UN failed to act and there was clear and compelling evidence of WMD. However, the fact is that at the time of the IWR, no compelling evidence had been presented. Furthermore, the Bush administration had already adopted a pattern of shifting justifications and equivocation. The Bush administration was prepared to shamelessly assert that connections existed between Al Qaida and Saddam. Finally, there were already grave concerns about war profiteering. In short, there was already plenty of evidence suggesting the administration could not be trusted to tell the straightforward truth and that this war needed concrete evidence to be justified.

Thus, there is a disconnect for me when Kerry suggests he was duped. How was he duped? What concrete evidence did the Bush Administration falsify to make John Kerry believe authorizing military action was necessary? Did John Kerry actually believe Bush's speechs ever presented compelling evidence? Dean, on the other hand, correctly pointed out that preemptive war without evidence of a clear and present danger is not merely mistaken but immoral. Though Kerry suggests that he shares this position, he didn't vote that way.

The Democrats will turn the tide of public opinion by principled opposition to Bush, rather than Kerry's attempt to have it both ways. Quite simply, after 8 years of Clinton and 4 of Bush, the public is sick of politicians who refuse to stake out a clear position--politicians who are characterized by eqivocation. I think that part of the reason public opinion is turning against Bush is that Dean's clear, uneqivocal criticisms are setting the tone and the agenda for the campaign, forcing other Democrats (and the media) to adopt sharper rhetoric. Whatever you may think of Dean's chances in the general election against Bush, he is doing a great service for his party.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. This reads like a textbook example of how to set up a strawman argument

My quarrel with your post is less with its substance as with its tone. It seems to me that you are suggesting that since Dean, like Kerry, would have supported the war under certain circumstances, his opposition is less strident as his supporters make it out to be. Although your point is of course correct, I think it distracts from the larger reason why people prefer Dean to Kerry

Definition:

The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.php

Of course you've taken it a step farther (in an odd direction) and also admitted that what Marshall says is correct.

[Padraig18]

15. The thing I hate about being a democrat is...

...how we immediately begin cannibalizing the candidates we don't PERSONALLY support! The object of the exercise is to beat the B.F.E.E. in '04, and I am going to support WHOEVER our nominee is!

If we have a problem with a given candidate's stance on an issue, etc., then let's state our objections RATIONALLY and save the venom for the evil GOP bastards who got our country into this mess!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. What venom?

It says "Response to Reply #14" So I have to believe you are replying to my post. So where in my post is the venom you say I am directing at Democrats?

[ludwigb]

18. Maybe it's a strawman argument

But you and I both know Marshall is shilling for Kerry and Clark. I'm just trying to remind Marshall (and Kerry supporters) that what is important is the guts a canidate shows in crucial moments, rather than the ways a canidate may or may not represent his position in hindsight. In hindsight, we all see that Gore was making valid arguments in the debates against Bush, but the fact remains that he lost them, whether we choose to believe it or not. Kerry's kind of politics is a loser and people like Marshall need to be smart enough to percieve this.

[Larkspur]

20. Actually Gore won the 3 debates against Bush

The post debate polls indicated that Gore won them. It was the post debate and post debate poll press that made it appear that Gore lost the debates.

Regarding Marshall, he had at one time opposed the Iraq War, but after reading a book by Pollack, he changed his position and supported war because it was believed that Saddam had elements ot rebuild WMD's. but that proved not to be the case either. Marshall is in the same boat as Kerry over the Iraq War.

[janx]

21. Who the hell is Josh Marshall?

?

[Classical_Liberal]

22. Clearly Dean saw the war for what it was

and Kerry didn't. I knew Bush was lying even then, and prefer a candidate that also saw how deceptive the war hawks were. Dean clearly had better judgement and foresight than Kerry. I don't trust Bush, and I don't understand why Kerry trusted Bush. The public trusted Bush because the public were listening to the Faux media, and were misinformed. Kerry had better sources than them and should have known better. Dean didn't trust Bush. That is the bottom line. Clearly History shows those who didn't trust Bush were correct. Most people who protested weren't really pacifist. Hardly of the people who support Dean are, though most were against the Iraq war, so judging both Kerry and Dean on pacifist principles is besides the point.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. Dean: "Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. "

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1

[DrFunkenstein]

32. Clearly You Didn't Read Kerry's Statements At The Time

Clearly you are mistaken on the basic premises of this thread. Clearly you should read statements. Then you should clearly come back and let us know what you discovered.

[Octafish]

24. Dean was anti-war when politically expedient.

He also said he was not "anti-war." And Dean was pro-war when politically expedient, as in Afghanistan.

Which is it, Dean?

[Rose Siding]

25. Dean was anti-war when CW found it to be

politically suicidal. Expediant? Why do you think ALL the mainstream Dems turned the keys over to Bush and washed their hands? Now *that* was political expediency.

[blm]

26. Conason on Kerry, August 2002.

The mainstream media would NEVER report the depth of Kerry's critiques of Bush.


Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason

New York Observer

>>>>>>
But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader.

The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

>>>>>>

He demanded an increase in foreign assistance as the best guarantee against suicidal terror. "If we fail to reach the children and families wrecked by the violence of poverty and seclusion, the growing population of unemployed and unemployable kids will find in fanaticism an answer to their problems," he said.

He is, however, no naïïve internationalist who abhors military force. As he has done before, Mr. Kerry wondered aloud why the President didn't muster sufficient firepower in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda''s army when the chance arose at Tora Bora.

>>>>>>>
Mr. Kerry is staking out a politically perilous position at a time when conventional wisdom declares foreign and military issues to be the exclusive province of the President. As a Senator from Massachusetts--whose last Presidential nominee suffered humiliating defeat by a candidate named Bush--he risks highlighting negative assumptions about his own viability on a national ticket.
 
According to the scientific measurements made by political consultants, Mr. Kerry''s chosen path is marked "dead end." The safer domestic route is crowded with competitors who talk only about corporate responsibility, prescription drugs and Social Security. The boldest among them now criticize the lopsided tax cut that shouldn't have passed last year.
>>>>>

[DrFunkenstein]

33. Politically Suicidal? That's Ridiculous!

Dean was in nowheresville at the beginning of the race. He got the most applause lines for anti-war and anti-Bush statements. You can actually watch the progression as the early campaign ran on.

This was not suicide in the least. He was dead in the water, and his anti-resolution (anti-war is hardly accurate) stance brought him to fame.

[stickdog]

28. Yeah, it was really "politically expedient" to be speak out against

the war while Saddam's statue was being pulled down. :eyes:

The level of sophistry employed by Kerry & Clark supporters never ceases to amaze me.

[Octafish]

35. Behold, rhetoric.

The words of Howard Dean.

Pt. 1, the Flip:

""It's conceivable we would have to act unilaterally ...."

-Des Moines Register, 10/02

"I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons...."

-PBS, 2/25/03

Pt. 2, the Flop:

"What I want to know is why the Democratic Party leadership is supporting the president's unilateral war against Iraq?"

-AP, 3/2/03 (Busted link — Octafish looking)

Source with links:

http://www.wafflepoweredhoward.com/

BTW, stickdog, is it still sophistry when all the ex-governor ex-doctor ex-stockbroker does is talk? When has he had to actually make a decision on a critical national issue? Better yet, when has he done something? We need more than angry words, DU Friend stickdog, to beat the BFEE beast.

[stickdog]

37. Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton were the ONLY candidates

speaking out against the war Bush was riding 75% approval ratings after Saddam's statue was pulled down on 4/9/03.

Kerry was hiding, hemming and hawing -- trying to have it both ways, as usual.

[stickdog]

27. Josh is a pro-Clark, pro-establishment shill.

Too bad.

Dean was speaking out against the war while Saddam's statue was being pulled down.

Meanwhile, Clark was cheering and Kerry was hiding, hemming and hawing.

The fact that that makes no difference to Josh proves belittling Dean's anti-Iraq War stance is more important to Josh than the lives of US soldiers and innocent Iraqis.

[no name no slogan]

30. But Dean's stance wasn't "anti-Iraq War"

...it was "anti-THIS Iraq War".

In February 2003, Dean said that he didn't support Bush's plan for going to war in Iraq. He actually supported a 60-day "waiting period" to give Saddam time to turn over his WMD (which he didn't have).

If Saddam failed to turn over his WMDs, Dean was all in favor of going to war.

Of course, after it was certain that the US had won the "war" (i.e., when Chalabi and his pals were pulling down the Saddam statue), he was once again against the war.

Like Dean has said before, "I was triangulating before Clinton". :eyes:

[DrFunkenstein]

34. Hemming And Hawing About Regime Change

I smacked your "revisionist history" around in another thread. Am I going to have to shoot you down everytime you post?

Kerry was quiet for all of a week. He was attacking Bush on the eve of war, and was back at it by the beginning of April. So can it.

[stickdog]

36. Saddam's statue came down on 4/9/03.

Let's see the next thing Kerry said against the Iraq War.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

39. This obsession you have with Bush's manufactured events is bizarre.