War And Howard Dean

[Upfront]

I think back to before the war was started when Howard Dean and a few others, stood almost alone in left field, staunchly against this war. The American people called him crazy, left field is now getting full, who was crazy? It makes me want to scream!

[dave29]

1. American people can't handle

the truth until it slaps them in the face. Howard Dean has been right on every count.

No WMD.

Getting rid of Saddam has not made us safer, in fact it has made the region less stable.

There were no Al Queda in Iraq and now there are.

He said there was a great danger of the Shiite forming a secular Government which would be destabilizing to the region.

But he was too "angry". And yet he's still out there fighting for the party. We desperately need leaders like Dean, not just for the party, but for the country.

[Colin Ex]

8. Biden-Lugar.

Right on every count.

Reach your own conclusions.

-C

[mzmolly]

22. I totally agree...

Dean was right. Dean for VP!!!

[AntiCoup2K4]

2. Makes me want to scream too

YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAARGH!!

What's worse are all the DU'ers who rightly stood in opposition to this sickening illegal war along with Dean, Kucinich, and millions worldwide, but who now excuse it, just because Kerry excuses his own enabling of it.

[madfloridian]

3. Why is he so mad? Here's over 500 reasons.

[quinnox]

4. Dean ran on this and though he was probably right it wasn't

enough of a platform to win the nomination.

[madfloridian]

5. That is just not true. He ran on much more than that.

The party leaders and our nominee support this war, and they will not speak out against it. They don't want anyone else to speak out on it either.

[quinnox]

7. It's a bit of a stretch to say

They don't want anyone else to speak out. Kennedy seems to be doing fine talking about this and he is a close friend of the Kerry campaign.

[madfloridian]

10. You must have missed when the Kerry advisors backed off .....

Kennedy and Dean. Yes, they did, saying they could hurt Kerry.

[dave29]

6. He did not just run on this

it's what propelled him to the front, and forced people to pay attention to the anti-war movement. I do wonder now, had the party been brave enough to nominate him - how he would be faring - having been proven so right, and Bush's foreign policy being exposed for what it is... completely incompetent.

Regardless, Dean deserves his props - in a big way. The party needs him desperately.

Can you imagine where Kerry would be without Dean pushing back against Nader?

[quinnox]

9. Dean has gotten much credit from the Dem movers and shakers

I saw the DNC dinner on C-span and he was praised and recognized by the big power players there.

[madfloridian]

11. Grudgingly in a way.

They would prefer not.

[Colin Ex]

12. Got anything to back it up?

For example, a document of some kind with a quotation from Mr. McAuliffe saying "Howard Dean is a jackass and I wish he wouldn't run" would help your case a lot.

Note -- Terry McAuliffe denying Dean's request to have him ask the democratic party challengers to back off doesn't count.

-C

[DFLforever]

13. The Osama ad - courtesy of the Democratic powers that be

Gephardt took the hit but I doubt he was the prime mover on this ad.

[edzontar]

26. I believe the Kerry campaign has also been linked to that

But dont know if a smoking gun ever turned up.

[Bill Todd]

27. Nothing quite that solid, as far as I know

Former Kerry (and Gephardt) campaign staffers were principals. A current major Kerry campaign contributor (the infamous Robert Torricelli) helped fund it (as did some Gephardt contributors, as least one of whom - a union - complained that they had been misled about its purpose). But at least a veneer of plausible deniability has been maintained, even with the Gephardt campaign, which I thought sank in Iowa more over the overtly negative warfare with Dean than because of any public connection with the 527 ads.

- bill

[edzontar]

33. Yes--it is the Torricelli connection--thanks...

Certainly a shameful episode in our party's recent history.

[jpgray]

14. Dean was for the war, but in a slightly different form

In Biden/Lugar, Bush could have followed his exact path to war without a hitch. Dean deserves credit for supporting a better bill (Biden/Lugar at least limited the authorization to Iraq), and for consistently stating that Bush hadn't made the case.

However, by no means is he in the same league as Kucinich, who was out in front of this months before Dean.

[Bill Todd]

15. This seems to be my day for repeat corrections

Since I already observed to you elsewhere that Bush himself clearly saw Biden/Lugar as an impediment (stating that he refused to accept a resolution that 'tied his hands') - quite possibly because it required him to return to Congress with a formal description of the actual need for war, a document where specific lies might have caused even a Republican-dominated Congress to consider the suitability of impeachment.

Of course, suggesting that Dean was 'for the war' (as you did in your post title) is absurd: at most, he admitted that there could be circumstances wherein it would be justifiable - circumstances which he doubted obtained at the time of the vote and which he (in marked contrast to Kerry) clearly understood did not obtain by the time the invasion actually occurred. As for whether Dennis was 'months ahead' of Howard in this matter, Howard had begun seriously criticizing the Bush position on invading Iraq at least by August, 2002; whether he, or Dennis, was doing so earlier I don't know.

- bill

[jpgray]

17. You know, we'll have to hold a party for your first non-Dean post

Of course Bush wanted to grab all he could get, therefore he pushed for the most unlimited authorization he could get. Bush could care less about lying in writing or on camera, so your assertion that Biden/Lugar would have stopped him or caused his impeachment is ridiculous--they have no compunction about such things, and are not held accountable for the most blatant lies and inconsistencies. That you would say a Republican Congress would impeach Bush for simply putting his 'case' for war in writing is pretty silly, as I expect you know yourself. Here's where you part with reality:

"(Dean) admitted that there could be circumstances wherein it would be justifiable

There were no circumstances wherein invading Iraq preemptively and unilaterally would be justifiable. That Dean would support Biden/Lugar, a bill allowing the president to obtain an authorization for preemptive war without international support or evidence, is only marginally forgivable because Biden/Lugar was better than the IWR. Dean actually made statements that within 60 days if Saddam had not 'disarmed' in the face of 'evidence', then preemptive unilateral war would be justified. Dennis knew better, as early as February 25th, 2002:

Let us pray that our country will stop this war. "To promote the common defense" is one of the formational principles of America. Our Congress gave the President the ability to respond to the tragedy of September the Eleventh. We licensed a response to those who helped bring the terror of September the Eleventh. But we the people and our elected representatives must reserve the right to measure the response, to proportion the response, to challenge the response, and to correct the response.

Because we did not authorize the invasion of Iraq.

[Bill Todd]

18. We held it, quite a while ago - you just weren't invited

If you really want an example of silliness, try your statement that there were no circumstances that would have justified invading Iraq unilaterally: clear evidence that Iraq possessed WMD and was in the process (immediately - no time for consultation) of giving them to Al Qaeda, for example, would have qualified.

But I'll happily grant you the point about Dennis' early statements against the war - though they'd have been more convincing had they not come from a source who would have been unlikely to support any war, at any time, for any reason (it's easy to speak out early against something which you would not support under any circumstances, since you don't have to assess them first).

- bill

[jpgray]

19. In Iraq, those circumstances could only have existed in a fairy tale

As Scott Ritter and Hans Blix have noted, there was ZERO evidence that Iraq was maintaining a stockpile of chemical or biological weapons. In fact, there was substantial evidence that the circumstances you describe were impossible:

In Ritter's article for Arms Control Today, in June of 2000:

'CIA assessments alone cannot certify that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction; national intelligence systems have failed to detect WMD efforts in Iraq in the past. But because of the work carried out by UNSCOM, it can be fairly stated that Iraq was qualitatively disarmed at the time inspectors were withdrawn.'

<snip>

'Conjecture aside, however, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Iraq could have meaningfully reconstituted any element of its WMD capabilities in the past 18 months.

'From a WMD perspective, Iraq today is not the Iraq of 1991. What took Iraq decades to build through the expenditure of billions of dollars could not, under any rational analysis, have been reconstituted since December 1998. Iraq's nuclear enrichment infrastructure has been reduced to zero, and Iraq lacks the funding, technology, and time required to reconstitute it. In theory, some practical work could have been carried out in the field of high-explosive lens development, but any serious effort would require the diversion of controlled stocks of specialized explosives that had been used for manufacturing the lenses, something that would be readily discerned once IAEA inspectors return to work.'

<snip>

'Even given a relaxation of the sanctions program, if there are no quantum jumps in the level of technology available to (Iraq), it should be many years before an indigenously designed, 150 kilometer range, Iraqi missile has the integrated range/payload/accuracy to militarily threaten even the immediate region.13

'Nothing has transpired since 1996 that could remotely be construed as a "quantum jump" in Iraq's ballistic missiles capabilities.'

And here from Dean, who, unlike Kucinich, believed Iraq possessed WMDs:

'It's very simple. Here's what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, "If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq."'

Beyond the longer deadline, this is EXACTLY how Bush made his own argument for unilateral, preemptive war. He made the guideline the relative and subjective measure of Iraq's 'cooperation', then proceeded to declare them 'incooperative' and invaded. How do you prove that Iraq isn't hiding WMDs? You can't, and that's why this is a lousy way to make a case for preemptive, unilateral war.

Compare this to Kucinich's statement on the same day:

'At this point, frankly, the evidence does not suggest that Iraq was connected to 9/11, that there's any connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, that there's any connection between Iraq and the anthrax attacks on this country. We don't hear from the CIA that Iraq has any usable weapons of mass destruction that they could deliver to the United States.'

Kucinich got it right. Why was Dean fooled? And, as my post above points out, Kucinich's criticism was much less for the Afghanistan conflict--to suggest that he didn't evaluate the war before he stood against it is an insult to all Kucinich supporters.

[Bill Todd]

24. As could any other circumstances

other than those which actually obtained - making your argument a meaningless tautology and complete non-rebuttal to my statement that "(Dean) admitted that there could be circumstances wherein it would be justifiable."

Kerry served as a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee from 1993 through 2000 and thus was familiar with the primary sources that Bush was using as supporting evidence for such 'fairy tales' as the existence of WMD (rather than simply unaccounted-for materials from which they might be produced) and a link with Al Qaeda. In addition, since you brought up Ritter, it's worth remembering that Ritter personally discussed the issue of Iraq's WMD (or lack of evidence thereof) with Kerry back in 2000 or 2001 and in fact sent Kerry copies of supporting information that Kerry requested from him. By contrast, Dean, as he stated multiple times, had to rely upon the public statements about intelligence being put forth by the administration, and (as he also made clear) gave them the benefit of the doubt where real doubt was possible.

Nonetheless, while Dean (as I already noted and you failed to respond to in any substantive manner) admitted in late 2002 that circumstances could exist that justified invasion, he was far more skeptical than Kerry was - and as Bush's lies unraveled Dean's skepticism blossomed into full-scale opposition well before the invasion actually occurred, while Kerry equivocated on the sidelines.

To equate Dean's position on the war with Kerry's is about as myopic as equating Kerry with Bush: there may be superficial points of similarity, and those points might even disturb some people (Kucinich supporters being prime candidates in this particular case, it would seem), but calling them identical is utter rubbish (or simple incompetence - take your pick).

And while Dennis' attitude toward the war indeed differed significantly from Dean's, as I (yet again) already noted it's easy to stake out a clear position when you're anti-war per se rather than depending upon circumstances, since no serious evaluation of the circumstances need occur (save for providing good talking points). I'm not quite in Dennis' camp on this matter, so I preferred Howard - and while you have every right to a different preference, it's worth noting that this thread isn't about Howard vs. Dennis, but about Howard vs. the nominee we're apparently stuck with.

- bill

[jpgray]

28. What does Kerry have to do with this? He was even worse than Dean

LOL, Dean's circumstances were unreasonable to Ritter in 2000, let alone 2002 when inspectors began to return. The experts were saying it was a fairy tale, but very few people listened. Dean's mistake was accepting the debate on GWB's terms--he admitted to the presence of WMD:

'(I) have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction.' (Statement, March 17, 2003)

'There's no question Saddam is a threat to the U.S. and our allies.' (Face the Nation, September 29, 2002)

'I think Saddam must be disarmed.' (Associated Press, Feb. 5, 2003)

And he embraced the wrongheaded 'prove they AREN'T hiding WMD from the inspectors':

'It's very simple. Here's what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, "If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq."' (Face the Nation, September 29, 2002)

In other words, Bush could pull his same 'wait a while for the inspectors to turn up nothing, wave some figures of unaccounted for WMD around, and invade' plan. I already gave Dean credit for what he did right--stating that Bush had not made the case for war, and supporting a resolution superior to the IWR.

[Bill Todd]

30. Well, at least you finally got the 'worse than Dean' part right

And that, of course, was the point of the original post, to which you responded (I would have to suggest rather inanely) "Dean was for the war, but in a slightly different form" (reply 14) thus initiating this particular branch of the discussion.

Which has subsequently revolved around that incorrect assertion. And you still seem to have some confusion on that point, e.g., by failing to understand in your statements above that once the inspectors were allowed back in (as of course did occur) then the rest of Dean's statement became inoperative: the deadline was for Iraq to allow the inspectors to get back on the job, not for the inspectors to find something that might not even be there any more.

In other words, Dean's position was to light a fire under the U.N. to enforce the existing resolutions by getting the inspectors back in operation - exactly what Kerry claimed he wanted the IWR to accomplish, but with much greater specificity and control. I'm not entirely comfortable with bullying the U.N. in that manner (even to move forward with what it already had nominally committed to do), but it sure beats the hell out of what actually happened (by following Kerry's course, which about half of his Senate Democratic colleagues had the sense to reject, along with many in the House).

Dean simply was not for the war (contradicting your first response), as long as containment and disarmament could be made to work effectively. To ensure that, we needed effective inspectors on the ground - and that's what his position was aimed at achieving, because as long as they were there and working whatever WMD (if any) existed would eventually be found, with no opportunity for significant deployment in the interim. And since you admit this above, in recognizing that Dean (vehemently) claimed that Bush had not made the case for war (again, in marked contrast to Kerry's meek request for another month of inspections to get more accomplices on board), there doesn't seem to be much left to argue about.

- bill

[jpgray]

35. I've said all along that Dean is better than Kerry on this issue

If Dean supports Biden Lugar, he's for authorizing the president in a superficially different way. I recognize that he supported it because it was better than IWR, but that doesn't mean it's a good resolution. If you want consistent, smart opposition to the Iraq war, Kucinich is the place to be. Dean operated within the terms of debate Bush set (i.e. Saddam has weapons), and supported a milder form of authorization that indicates support of a different kind of invasion. Or in other words, he was for the war, just not in this particular form.

[madfloridian]

16. Dean is opposed to a war based on lies, as this was one.

He is not anti-war. He is anti this war. Yes, Kucinich formed a committee early on.

Kerry and most of the Democratic leaders totally supported this war and the purpose for it, allowing the WH to lie to the people.

[blm]

21. Where did Kerry ever say he totally supported the war? I never saw that.

Back in the early summer of 2002, even, Kerry was warning Bush about trying to go into war with Iraq without first setting specific guidelines. And before that he was hammering Bush for his serious military failures in Afghanistan while Dean publicly backed Bush over Kerry. (July 2002 MTP)

Don't you remember Conason's August 2002 piece in the NY Observer where he said Kerry was the only candidate speaking out against Bush's foreign policy? Dean didn't become critical of Bush's foreign policy until Conason criticized the other candidates for failing to join Kerry.

[JohnKleeb]

25. Kerry has called his IWR vote his toughest vote ever

and he warned Bush not to rush to war. Kennedy has called their votes the same. I think youre right about when Dean started criticizing the war plan, that was fall of 2002 right around when I first heard of him.

[no name no slogan]

20. Kucinich was right then, and he's right now, too.

Dennis Kucinich not only opposed the war, but led the opposition to it in the House-- even going up against the leadership of his own party, because he knew (like many of us) that it was a bogus war, waged without proof of a threat.

Someday, people will look back on the foresight Dennis Kucinich exhibited in this campaign, and he'll get his due for being ahead of his time-- not only on Iraq, but on the economy, on "Free Trade", on universal healthcare, and on the bloated, wasteful Pentagon budget that left us ill-prepared for the new millenium.

Dennis Kucinich: The Eyes That See Through The Lies.

[Kanary]

36. Dennis was also right *AFTER* the war was started

by saying that the US just needs to get out..

I wish he had just a dollar for everytime he said "UN in, US out". :)

But, there was just much scoffing.

Not so much scoffing now.

*That* field is filling up, too.

sigh....

Kanary

[mzmolly]

23. THEY WERE CRAZY!!! We were right!! Dean and Kucinich and Braun

were right!!! GRRRRRRR... I'm with you upfront. :hi:

[DaveSZ]

29. .

"In Biden/Lugar, Bush could have followed his exact path to war without a hitch. Dean deserves credit for supporting a better bill (Biden/Lugar at least limited the authorization to Iraq), and for consistently stating that Bush hadn't made the case.

However, by no means is he in the same league as Kucinich, who was out in front of this months before Dean."



I agree with the above statements, and Kucinich was the only real anti-war candidate.

Also on Kerry's Senate floor speech about the IWR, he vocally supported the Biden/Lugar Amdendment.


It's obvious though that Kerry is tap dancing with this issue at the moment.

[Jai4WKC08]

31. Well, along with the usual gang of liberals...

I don't suppose it's worth pointing out that General Clark opposed the war before the Senate Armed Services Committee way back in Sept 2002. From his testimony:

"When you're talking about American men and women going and facing the risk we've been talking about this afternoon, and if you're talking to the mothers and the loved ones of those who die in that operation, you want to be sure that you're using force and expending American blood and lives and treasure as the ultimate, last resort; not because of a sense of impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions or frustration from the domestic political processes of allies."

http://www.videos4clark.com/vidclips/07.wmv

[Bill Todd]

32. Yes, it's worth pointing out

I had some significant doubts about Clark because of the reasons people drafted him to run. But he grew on me over time, and his supporters did as well (even thought I'm about the antithesis of the "I'll follow my General anywhere" kind of guy).

Definitely a bit to the right of me, but a good candidate. And there were a good many people to the right of him with serious doubts about the war as well, though in many cases not people I'd normally be all that quick to want to associate myself with.

- bill

[no name no slogan]

34. Yeah, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day

I agree-- Pat Buchannan was also correct about this war, and I certainly don't agree with him most of the time.

As the old saying goes, "even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day".

:D