Chairman Howard Dean Backs Bush's Occupation Of Iraq

[Itsthetruth]

CounterPunch
April 22, 2005

"We're There and We Can't Get Out"
Howard Dean, Leader of the Other Pro-War Party, Backs the Occupation
By KEVIN ZEESE

It didn't take long, the former anti-war presidential candidate has now become the pro-occupation leader of the Democratic Party. Just when a majority of the public is saying the Iraq War is not worth it, Howard Dean the new leader of the Democratic Party is saying: “Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out.”

Like the good partisan he is, Dean blames Bush for a war most in his party voted for and an occupation that most in his party recently voted to continue to fund. Of the President Dean said: “The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there.”
Chairman Dean does not seem to understand that the illegal occupation of Iraq is part of the problem, not part of the solution. In fact, the many fears he expresses regarding pulling out of Iraq are made more likely by the US occupation of Iraq.

According to an article in the Minnesota Star Tribune, Dean claims that an American pullout from Iraq could endanger the United States in any of three ways: by leaving a Shiite theocracy worse than that in Iran, which he called a more serious threat than Iraq ever was; by creating an independent Kurdistan in the north, with destabilizing effects on neighboring Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iran and Syria, and by making the Sunni Triangle a magnet for Islamic terrorists similar to the former Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

A responsible withdrawal plan will minimize the risks that Dean fears by stopping mainstream Iraqis from supporting the resistance to U.S. occupation. If Iraqis know they will be getting back their country and that there will be a dual withdrawal of U.S. troops and corporate interests in the near future the resistance will lose support. Our presence empowers anti-US views in Iraq – our exit will make the U.S. invasion truly into a liberation of Iraq from Saddam. Our continued presence makes clear this was not a war of liberation but a war of occupation and dominance of the region.

Kevin Zeese is director of DemocracyRising.US.

http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese04222005.html

[bluestateguy]

1. Everybody here wanted Dean as DNC chair

and this was always his position, so I hope there is not a lot of shock and outrage over this.

[madfloridian]

14. Some believe it is an attempt by some groups to form a 3rd party now.

I wish them luck, but they should not tear down the Democratic party to do so. This is getting out of control.

Do a search on dean, iraq, "now that we are there" on google.

[Guaranteed]

54. It could be- the way people are reacting to this is bullshit.

It's not just that he's been CRYSTAL CLEAR on this position from the VERY BEGINNING- but what he's saying is absolutely correct.

Iraq is just starting to finally come around. NOW we're going to pull out?

If we were going to pull out, we should have done it before the elections.

I think that if people would take a step back and really think about what is the best thing for the Iraqis at this point, they would realize that Dean is right.

We should never have invaded. But, at this point, we have to stay.

[rodeodance]

2. maybe when we have to leave Iraq-in the manner we left Vietman-people

will come to their senses. but that took? 10 years?

[stray cat]

3. Bush created a mess in Iraq - what we do with it now is a good question.

I for one don't know what the best answer is for ourselves or the Iraqi people now that we have destroyed the countries infrastructure.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

4. Sadly, that's true. We f**ked the Iraqis when we attacked, and if we

abruptly pull the troops out they'll be f**ed by the ensuing instability, civil war and, most likely, some version of ethnic cleansing i.e. genocide.

That said, we are now an occupying, martial force in their country, an untenable situation for the Iraqis and Americans of integrity and conscience.

Dean is clear about the consequences of gwb's illegal war, and is honest about the results of a quick departure.

If this isn't a quagmire, I don't know what is. MKJ

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. Now we can control what happens there... self-determinism my ass,

it will be McDonalds on every corner poisoning their kids, and pharmco companies ruling the med society putting those same kids on drugs that they don't need. Everything is going according to plan, go back to sleep.

[FreedomAngel82]

I'm mixed myself

Some part of me says we need to leave now and maybe later send people to help. On the other hand I do see what people say when we should help them fix their country. They already hate us so I don't know. :shrug:

[burn the bush]

6. Many people who don't believe in the war still believe that we can't

just up and leave. It would leave Iraq open to all the things that we didn't want to happen. Civil war, destruction of most of the country. Taliban like law.
I used to believe that we had to stay for these reasons, but when I look at Iraq now, I don't think it can get much worse for those people than what our presence has caused. Maybe they can get together and work it out if we leave. I just don't think it can get too much worse for them than what we have done. I think we should leave. At the very least I'd like to see a real Iraqi vote on if US should go or stay.

[ClintonTyree]

10. The Pottery Barn Rule....

we broke it, we own it.

"Dean blames Bush for a war most in his party voted for and an occupation that most in his party recently voted to continue to fund".

WRONG! The Democrats voted for war AS A LAST RESORT! Not as a FIRST resort, like the bush baby did. The money that funds the occupation goes along with the Pottery Barn Rule. We blew the fucking country to smithereens and now we are obliged to fix it.

Blaming Dean for the knucklehead in the White House's mistakes is a big stretch. Are we supposed to cut and run now? As soon as there's a stable government in Iraq we should get the hell out. However, that doesn't fit into the neo-cons' plans. They want to establish a permanent presence in Iraq, and neither Dr. Dean or any other Democrat thinks that is a good idea.

[Itsthetruth]

30. "We" Don't Own Iraq

"The Pottery Barn Rule.... we broke it, we own it."

I think that most Iraqi's would not agree with the idea that the United States now owns "Iraq".

[NYCGirl]

32. And most thinking people would understand what is meant by "own it."

We broke it, we fix it.

[KittyWampus]

52. If A 50 Year Old Impregnates A 16 Year Old Who Gives Birth... He Damned

well better be prepared to take responsiblity.

The GOP's MO is to engender extremely volitile situations and then pretend they have no responsiblity to help afterwards.

They forcefully take what they want and leave the affronted parties behind with no even a 'thank you'.

[NYCGirl]

53. Strange analogy, but that's pretty much what I said.

We have the responsibility to fix what we broke.

[KittyWampus]

56. It Was My Way Of Agreeing With You & Dean & Pointing To The Piss Poor

job that the GOP does as Executives.

[NYCGirl]

57. I understand. And you're correct. NT

[DS1]

72. Actually, we're the 16 year old, Iraq is the 80 year old, and we just

bombed his house.

[sandnsea]

66. I pay to have it fixed

I can't fix most things that I break. That's what we're missing in the Iraq debate. We can't fix extremists turning into terrorists in our own country. What makes us think we can fix it overseas. We've got democracy, that clearly isn't the solution.

It isn't primarily a question of whether insurgents are attacking the US ocupation. It's a question of extremist terrorism, overall. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, and all the other 40 countries where terrorist groups are known to exist.

We need to put the focus back on extremist terrorism and how to win that "war". If we don't know how to win it without the military in other countries, we're not going to win it with the military in Iraq. Extremism can't be defeated militarily.

[applegrove]

7. They need an independent army to finish the insurgency. The sooner

that happens the sooner the US can get out.

[madfloridian]

8. That author thinks the Democratic party has failed...wants 3rd party.

He has his own motives, and is a Nader supporter bigtime.

He states in a very recent article that the party is dead, and it is time for a new one.

Disagreeing one on one with Dean's statement is quite different than an organized attempt. Some suspect that may be happening.

I want to work with the party to change things. I will not join the Nader and Kucinich groups who are doing this.

Disagree with Dean if you wish, but this is different. Kevin Zeese is a Nader guy who does not wish the Democrats well.

Yesterday the Kevin from PDA also misrepresented Dean's stance on pulling out. I will tell you what I told him....look up Dean and "now that we are there".

There are motives and motives.

[sellitman]

17. Screw Nader and ANYONE who still supports his mangy ass.

I wouldn't piss on Nader if he were on fire. :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Radical Activist]

26. Kucinich is starting a new party now?

Come on, you know that isn't true. Progressive Democrats of American is designed to move the Democratic Party to the left, not start a new one. Your accusation is unfounded and unfair. Kucinich has never even hinted that he would join a third party. Before he was elected chair, I heard a lot more Dean supporters on DU talk about a third party movement than Kucinich supporters have.

[madfloridian]

9. "Like the good partisan that he is"? What a slam.

Did you see how Kevin Zeese put his own interpretation on everything Dean said....he expanded it to mean Dean is an imperialist and hates muslims and all that crap. Baloney, Kevin.

[ClintonTyree]

13. Right...

it's all bullshit with a layer of frosting on it. Zeese has his own agenda and is trying to sow the seeds of discontent among Democrats. Screw him and the horse he rode in on.

[madfloridian]

15. The Nader and Kucinich groups have many good ideas.

However, when they start trying to destroy our party to build one of their own...they need to back off.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

34. Zeese was Nader's campign chair last year

not saying there's anything wrong with that. i still like ralph (zeese i've met and find a little cold and pretentios), but it is worth mentioning.

[madfloridian]

40. I like Ralph fine, I just don't want his folks attacking our party chair..

unfairly. For two damn days I have had to fight for the truth, while I keep getting attacked.

[Itsthetruth]

31. Thanks

"Did you see how Kevin Zeese put his own interpretation on everything Dean said....he expanded it to mean Dean is an imperialist and hates muslims and all that crap. Baloney, Kevin"

No, I didn't see the article where Zeese said that Howard Dean hates muslims and crap. Please post a link.

Thanks

[wuushew]

11. U.S. politics are not based on pacifism sadly

In order to control policy a party needs to possess 50% + 1 votes in main branches of government. Even a half way conciliatory tone regarding American imperialism should be viewed at least a form of damage control or breaking on this country's indomitable slide into fascism.

This is historically born out by the enthusiasm by the American people themselves to attack Britain, Canada, Mexico, Central America and numerous other places. If the U.S. hasn't learned it lesson it never will.

Despite all the comparisons to Vietnam, the U.S. has fought and arguably won several immoral and quagmirish wars. As long as people believe in the slimmest hope of victory, pride and stubborn arrogance will prevail. Unpleasant memories generated by such endeavors fade with the passage of time leading invariably to new wars every 20-30 years. Look at the war in the Philippines. By using excessive force and massacring people we were able to unjustly keep that country under our boot for 50 years as a direct colony. Did the justifications or results of that war feature prominently in any of the pre-World War national elections?

[madfloridian]

12. Counterpunch has desires that the Democrats fail

They have more nasty stuff about Democrats, all of them, than they do the other party.

They want the party to fail so they can build a 3rd one. Many suspect this is an organized attempt to pretend Howard Dean did not always say this.

I don't see an apology at PDA for yesterday, and I will check Democracy rising for one for just plan twisting Dean's words and putting their own Nader interpretation on it.

[w13rd0]

16. Sadly I view counterpunch...

...with a healthy degree of skepticism.

[madfloridian]

18. Kevin Zeese needs to correct his interpretation.

Yesterday we corrected Kevin Spidel of PDA that this was NOT a change by Dean. He has always said that he, and he has never wavered.

He has honestly always said "I am not anti-war, I am anti-Iraq war because the president has failed to prove his case."

Kevin Zeese needs to fix it.

Agree or not agree, at least be honest. If you want a 3rd party, form it. Give us a change to fix our own.

[followthemoney]

19. I accidently stepped on a guys foot. I knew he wouldn't understand

it was an accident, so I had to pre-emptively hit him to disable the attack I knew he was going to bring to me. I had to hit him a few times, harder and harder. I was angry at him for making me do this. So I started choking him. He was too big to let go. I couldn't just walk away because if he got up he might remember me and attack me later. I waited until he stopped breathing and then walked away.

I am amazed at the things an innocent normal good American citizen has to do just to avoid being bothered by some unstable wacko. It seems as if these types are everywhere. Sheesh!












Just fooling with you. Never mind.

[dkofos]

20. I don't buy it.

All we have to do is back off and watch.
If we are not in the Iraqi's faces we can slowly pull
our people out in six months or less.
We just need to get out. PERMANENTLY

[madfloridian]

22. Then contact these people who voted yes for the war.

Chairman Dean expressed a responsible opinion which he has always held. He has no voice in policy. The ones who voted for it should be contacted.

YEAs ---77
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

33. amazing how many of those dems listed went down to defeat in 02&04

what did selling their soul to bush gain them? nothing!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Dean is a politician first, humanitarian a distant second.

Just like 99.99% of all politicians in the corporate(R) or corporate(D) parties.

[Karmadillo]

23. The longer we stay, the more Iraqi children we can starve.

Everybody wins!

http://www.keralanext.com/news/indexread.asp?id=167844

Iraq ; Children 'starving' in new Iraq:
Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Increasing numbers of children in Iraq do not have enough food to eat and more than a quarter are chronically undernourished, a UN report says.

Malnutrition rates in children under five have almost doubled since the US-led intervention - to nearly 8% by the end of last year, it says.

The report was prepared for the annual meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva.

more...

[Radical Activist]

24. Dean ALWAYS supported the occupation. This is not breaking news.

Unless this writer was asleep during the primaries. Dean was always a good pretend peace candidate that opposed the reasons for the war but he supported the occupation all along. Its truly sad how many pro-peace activists supported this man who pledged to keep the Iraq war going for years.

[welshTerrier2]

25. the Democrats are afraid of "Peace"

first, most of those defending Dean in this thread have exhibited nothing short of paranoia with their ad hominem attacks on the article's author ... argue the damned policy; not the author's intent ... or at least do both ... these "they're all out to get Dean" attacks are not credible ... Dean is NOT the issue; the Democrats' fucked up support of bush's occupation of Iraq is the issue ...

now to the issue at hand ... some, including Dean, have argued in favor of the idiotically-named Pottery Barn theory ... we're not talking about cute little planters with daisies painted on them; people in Iraq are dying everyday ... those are planters they're being buried in; they're coffins ... more than a 100,000 have died; depleted uranium has poisened the country-side; there is little or no safe drinking water and minimal utilities; there are no jobs; there is no peace ... in short, the US has turned Iraq into a burning hell ...

but still, some believe we have to stay there to make things better ... here's exactly what's wrong with that belief ... ready? bush does NOT want things to get better in Iraq!!!!! got that ??? by supporting the argument Dean and others have put forward, you have to believe that the bush regime is seeking to "make things better" ... pushing your position, like it or not, means you have to trust that bush is trying to "succeed" ... got that ??? bet you don't want to hear that argument but that's exactly where it leads ... you, every single one of you, who supports the "we're stuck going along with bush until he makes things better", has to trust that bush is actually trying to do so ...

guess what????? he is NOT !!!!!

so, before you argue with my premise, and i trust you will because i'm sure you resent anyone tying you directly to bush's policy in Iraq, at least state whether you agree with the statement that bush is NOT trying to "succeed" (meaning make life better for the Iraqis) in Iraq ... if you disagree with that statement, we have a whole different argument ...

anyway, why do I argue that bush does not want to end the occupation and is content to allow hostilities to continue??? please also let me know whether you agree with the following two points ...

1. the Congress has allocated, over the last 3 budget cycles, huge amounts of money, billions and billions of dollars, for the reconstruction of Iraq ... it was a very widely held belief that the "insurgency" would rapidly fizzle out if life quickly returned to normal for the Iraqi people and their lives were truly made better ...
ask yourself this: why were virtually no reconstruction funds actually spent? they still haven't been ... and $9 billion of reconstruction funds are missing and still unaccounted for? could they have been channeled to covert operations in Iran? Syria? Lebanon? who knows ... what we do know is that Iraq's infrastructure is much worse off now than before the US invasion ...

think long and hard on this point ... if it was common knowledge that making things better for the Iraqis would lead to peace and stability, why haven't those in charge of the US efforts made damned sure it happened? answer: they don't want peace and stability ...

2. oil companies are realizing the highest profits in their history ... these profits are directly attributable to the high price of oil which is very closely linked to the instability in the Middle East ... is it just possible those in power have close ties to the oil industry? could they be so crude (it's an oil industry term) that they would define US foreign policy to benefit their corporate friends instead of the best interests of the American people and the Iraqi people? what motivation do you really believe bush and cheney would have to kill the cash cow that unstable oil markets have created for their greedy corporate friends? answer: they don't want peace and stability ...

it is difficult to know whether so many elected Democrats, and Dean, genuinely believe we should continue to back bush's occupation of Iraq ... at best, if we take them at their word, they are wrong for doing so ... they have gotten into bed with bush and cheney and that is never a good idea ...

or, in the alternative, they have chosen to "go along" based on political calculations ... personally, i believe this is the case ... i see a Democratic Party so fearful, especially since 9/11, of being labeled "weak on defense" that they can't see a viable political way to call for peace ... they say things like: "we're stuck there; we should train the Iraqis; we should leave as soon as Iraq is stabilized" ... the bottom line is they are supporting bush's policy in Iraq ... and the problem with that is that bush's policy is totally fucked up ... it will never end and it will NOT make things better for the Iraqis ...

"Peace" has become a dirty word at the DNC ... and far too many here like to label those of us who see this war as un-winnable as the extreme left-wing of the Party ... well, excuse me ... i hardly consider opposing bush's corporate war as left wing ... to me, opposing the war puts the best interests of the American people, and the Iraqi people, ahead of corporate interests and the Democratic Party's "fraidy-cat" politics ...

[Terran1212]

27. Dean Dean Dean...

I never thought that Dean was much of a grassroots liberal. And I'll echo the same remark about Clark (runs).

[madfloridian]

28. Here are the people to contact who voted for it...

That is the right thing to do. Dean spoke from conscience, and he has always said this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3532641

[madfloridian]

29. To those who say he flip flopped and heads the war party.

To the two Kevins for them to tell their groups that he has always said this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3536245

[Paranoid_Portlander]

35. That's what my political science teacher said in 1964.

"We can't leave Vietnam. We're already there."

[madfloridian]

36. Agree or disagree, but be honest.

Agree or disagree, but be honest!

This is a man speaking from conscience. If you do not agree, fine. But two progressive groups, one of which I respected, have called him out on this wrongly, saying he is just like the others, an imperialist. He is speaking from conscience. Agree or disagree, but don't use it as an excuse to attack the party chair when he is just getting started rebuilding.

http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/001116.html

Wednesday, August 20, 2003
"We Cannot Afford to Fail"
BURLINGTON--Governor Howard Dean issued this statement on Iraq:

"Since last April, I have been calling on President Bush to internationalize the reconstruction effort in Iraq. I repeat that call today.

"Expert after expert has returned from Iraq stating that the window of opportunity is closing faster than anyone expected and that our chance to successfully stabilize and rebuild the country is quickly passing. Despite this, the Bush Administration refuses to seek a UN mandate so that our historic allies and friends can join us in this effort and speed up the reconstruction process.

"I call on the Bush Administration to take the following steps to encourage our proven allies and friends, including France, Germany, India, and Turkey to join us in Iraq and to accelerate the reconstruction process. We must:

* Work with the UN to build the largest coalition possible to help us succeed in Iraq;
* Make clear our intention to share decision-making on security and reconstruction issues in Iraq with those countries and international institutions that join the international coalition;

* Prioritize restoring law and order and the resumption of electricity, water, and sanitation services -- they are fundamental to success in all other areas;

* Focus on developing Iraqi capacity to undertake key functions as soon as possible;

* Decentralize the operations of the Coalition Authority and make money more forthcoming and flexible;

* Employ the sizable number of available Iraqis with short term public works projects and get state-run enterprises up and running, even if they must be downsized and privatized later;

* Push for UN oversight of the successor to the Oil for Food program;

* Award reconstruction contracts to the best US or foreign bidder in a transparent and open process.

"Yesterday's bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq appears to have been an effort to dissuade other members of the international community from assisting us. It is vital to our chances of success that the Bush Administration redouble its efforts to internationalize the military and civilian presence and to speed up the stabilization and rebuilding process. We cannot afford to fail."

[chlamor]

37. Imperialists come in many shades and hues

I think part of our dilemma is that we have been conditioned to aim so low. HD's record in Vermont was unexceptional and he is ideologically in lock step with "America as the world's power and beacon of light".

Will Howard demand a 25% reduction in military spending with further cuts down the line? Noone believes that. He is not a progressive candidate who is going to slash the bloated and earth destroying, life denying Pentagon budget.



Indeed, Dean's earliest statements on foreign policy in the presidential campaign were written with the help of one of the architects of the war in Afghanistan, Danny Sebright, who held the Orwellian title of Director of the Executive Secretariat for Enduring Freedom at the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld. Sebright oversaw military operations that claimed the lives of over 3,000 civilians without achieving the stated objective of finding and arresting Ossama bin Laden. Under the Clinton administration, Sebright worked at the Pentagon helping to oversee weapons sales to the Middle East during the period in which the U.S. became the largest weapons exporter in the world.

When Sebright left the Pentagon in February of 2002 he went to work for his old boss, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, at the Cohen Group, a Washingon-based consulting company. The firm uses its political connections to help companies obtain contracts with the Pentagon and with foreign governments. While it is discreet about its clientele, the Cohen Group does list some of its successes on its website--a list that includes helping to negotiate arms sales to Latin American and Eastern European countries, and "Advis and assist U.S. company in working with U.S. Government officials and the Coalition Provisional Authority in securing major contract related to Iraq reconstruction" The fact that a close Dean advisor works for a consulting firm involved in pitching contracts for reconstruction projects in Iraq raises questions about the true motives of Dean's support for the President's $87 billion Iraqi reconstruction program.

More recently, Dean has been getting foreign policy advice from President Clinton's former Deputy Chief of Staff, Maria Echaveste. Echaveste's record is mixed. To her credit, Echaveste led the Department of Labor's campaign against sweatshops in the mid-1990's and has worked for the United Farm Workers union. But Echaveste also played a key role in shaping the legislative and public relations strategies that helped the Clinton administration get Congress to approve Plan Colombia. Echaveste traveled to Colombia with President Clinton to help promote a policy that included aerial herbicide fumigations of vast areas of farmland and rainforests in southern Colombia and more U.S. funding, weapons, and advisors for the Colombian military. Over the past three years she has done nothing to distance herself from a policy that contributed to the escalation of Colombia's civil war, the destruction of forests and farms, massive displacement, and dramatic increases in assassinations and disappearances. For his part, Dean has been vague about his position on U.S. military aid to Colombia. (Incidentally, Sen. John Kerry has chosen Rand Beers, who oversaw Colombia policy at the State Department for both the Clinton and Bush administrations, to head up his foreign policy team.)

Dean comes from the centrist wing of the Democratic Party, and draws his advisors from the party's establishment, even though he tries to portray himself as a progressive and an outsider. His opposition to the war in Iraq isn't rooted in the moral vision or poltical analyis of the peace movement, but rather in the foreign policy establishment's skepticism about the rash and impulsive nature of the Bush administration's military actions in Iraq. In remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations last June, Dean said that: "America must not shy away from its role as the remaining superpower in the world. We are, as Madeleine Albright once put it, the "indispensable power" for so many challenges around the world. Inevitably, some will resent us for what we have, and some will hate us for what we believe. But there is much in the world that we cannot achieve on our own. So we must lead toward clearly articulated and shared goals and with the cooperation and respect of friends and allies."

http://www.counterpunch.org/donahue10302003.html

[madfloridian]

39. The lie has been told by two progressive website leaders.....

about his stance, the same one he has had for over two years. So to make the lie ok, we all quote Counterpunch and attack Madfloridian who just quoted a statement from 2003.

Way to go.

:woohoo:

[Zenlitened]

38. Yeah, that 's what he said. That's exactly what he said.

:eyes:

[GodHelpUsAll2]

41. But it's going to be

all ok. Kerry is working "under the radar" to fix everything!


BBBWWWWWAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAA

[Itsthetruth]

42. Howard Dean Hopes Bush's Iraq Policy Is Successful

These are Dean's words, not mine or Zeese.

Howard Dean: "But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there.”

Does everyone here who is actually against the Bush's Iraq invasion and occupation agree with Dean's statement?

Of course, those who are critical of Dean and other pro-war Democrats are just trying to disrupt and pick on the poor old Democratic party leaders simpy because they vote for Bush's policies and publicly embrace them .... like Dean and Senator Reid.

Oh .... those progressives are so terrible and harsh on Bush enablers in the Democratic Party! Especially media created "anti-war" crusaders like Howard Dean!

We should give every self-described "liberal" Democrat who endorses key parts of Bush's foreign and domestic agenda a pass. They are forgiven! So what if they support policies we oppose and oppose policies we support? They are Democrats!

The smart thing to do is concentrate our fire against progressives we agree with, those who are fighting Bush's reactionary agenda. Especially those progressives who did not join the Anybody But Bush hysteria and John Kerry's pro-war election campaign.

Now that's smart politics!

[madfloridian]

44. Ah, so you hope Bush fails.

That is the opposite of hoping he succeeds. My point is this and I think you already know it:

For several days, attacks on Dean's statement have been over the line, with one thread yesterday saying he is being corrupted by the party. Well, I just posted something from 2003 that shows he has always said this. I will post it again so you can be sure to see it....it dropped very quickly.

It is wrong to blame Howard Dean for the war, it is wrong to use him for the agenda to build a 3rd party. Dead wrong. He did not vote for the war, congress did. I also posted the names of those voting yes, several times.

Get upset with them. Don't use Howard Dean as a scapegoat for your anti-war movement when he never claimed to be anti-war...just anti-Iraq war. He is being used by two groups that I know of, and I am going to watch.

[Itsthetruth]

47. You Are Correct: I Hope Bush's Right-Wing Colonial Foreign Policy Flops

"Ah, so you hope Bush fails. That is the opposite of hoping he succeeds."

I'm sorry that you hope Bush is successful.

"It is wrong to blame Howard Dean for the war, it is wrong to use him for the agenda to build a 3rd party. Dead wrong. He did not vote for the war, congress did. I also posted the names of those voting yes, several times."

Howard Dean could not join John Kerry in voting for the Iraq invasion and military funds for the ongoing occupation because he's not a member of Congress. Do you think he would have broke with John Kerry and voted against the invasion and occupation had he been a member of Congress? Now that's really wishful thinking!

[Itsthetruth]

43. Howard Dean Hopes Bush's Iraq Policy Is Successful

These are Dean's words, not mine or Zeese.

Howard Dean: "But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there.”

Does everyone here who is actually against the Bush's Iraq invasion and occupation agree with Dean's statement?

Of course, those who are critical of Dean and other pro-war Democrats are just trying to disrupt and pick on the poor old Democratic party leaders simply because they vote for Bush's policies or "only" endorse them .... like Dean and Senator Reid. Picky .... Picky .... Picky!

Oh .... those progressives are so terrible and harsh on Bush enablers in the Democratic Party! Excuse me while I shed a tear here. It's so sad .... so sad how they pick on people who pretend to side with us.

We should give every self-described "liberal" Democrat who endorses key parts of Bush's foreign and domestic agenda a pass. They are forgiven! So what if they support policies we oppose and oppose policies we support? They are Democrats!

The smart thing to do is concentrate our fire against progressives we agree with, those who are fighting Bush's reactionary agenda. Especially those progressives who did not join the Anybody But Bush hysteria and John Kerry's pro-war election campaign.

Now that's smart politics!

[Itsthetruth]

45. Moderator: Please Remove Duplicate Post

Just noticed it. Thank you.

[JNelson6563]

46. How transparent can you get?

Glad to see the left keeping up the long tradition of eating its own.

/sarcasm

Who here is foolish enough to think we should leave a power vaccum in Iraq? We could then look forward to another Afghanistan. Who here thinks it's fair for us to leave Iraq after we have leveled the country?

I am saddened to see so many Dems so clueless or pretending to be just to slam Dean.

Julie

[BiggJawn]

69. Yeah, maybe we can sell Iraq to Mullah Ohmar...

I hear he's still in the market for a country to rule.

So the official Democratic Party position should be "Let's pull out overnight and just LEAVE the mess we made for someone ELSE to clean up..."?

Can't support that. Kerry got his ass reamed by most us "Good Liberals" for suggesting pretty much the same thing Dean's talking about, too.

[CTLawGuy]

48. apparently

some people here think a bloody civil war and a muslim theocracy is a "progressive thing".


That's what will happen if we remove our soldiers at this point. Iraq is a tent and we are the frame holding it up. If we leave, the tent falls down.

Dean was against going in because he knew this is what we'd have to do if we did.

[Itsthetruth]

50. Dean Against The Invasion But Hopes Bush's Occupation Is A Success?

"Dean was against going in because he knew this is what we'd have to do if we did."

He was against the invasion??? Please provide a link where Dean spoke out against Bush's war authorization bill and the invasion.

If that's true, I have to wonder why Dean had a "change in heart" and now wishes Bush's success with his colonial war. It seems that Dean probably has some tactical disagreements with Bush on how to conduct a successful colonial occupation but that hardly makes him a "dove" on Iraq.

I'm still trying to figure out how Dean and his political consultants managed to portray Howard Dean as a "anti-Iraq war" candidate last year. They did a terrific p.r. job! Of course, they did get a lot of help from some desperate anti-war liberals who hoped Dean would stop the "pro-war" John Kerry from getting the nomination. When that failed, Howard Dean led his flock in support of the pro-war Democratic party candidate. And most of Dean's supporters closed their eyes and pretended that John Kerry was against the invasion and occupation.

[CTLawGuy]

51. did you live on Mars in 2003?

Here's a link from a PBS interview

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/dean_2-25.html
---------
GWEN IFILL: You have said that the president has not made his case for leading an attack or starting an attack in Iraq. Why don't you make your case against that for us?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: Sure. I think there's a high threshold for a unilateral attack, and the United States has traditionally set the moral tone for foreign policy in the world. My view of this is since Iraq is not an imminent danger to the United States, the United States should not unilaterally attack Iraq. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. They do not have much of a nuclear program, if they have one at all left. And they have not... there is not any particular evidence that is convincing that they have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. All those three things would constitute, in my view, a reason to defend our country by unilaterally attacking. But those are not the cases. Sec. Powell and the president have not made those cases well.

------------

You don't get pegged by the media as an anti-war leftist for no reason.

and also, I hope that, if Bush truly intends to set up a stable non-theocratic country with a minimum number of deaths and destrcution, I hope he succeeds too. I don't want a bloody civil war in the country, and I hope you don't want that too Itisthetruth.

[Guaranteed]

55. Re: Wanting the war to be successful.

1) He doesn't want to see more of our soldiers killed.

2) He doesn't want to see more Iraqis killed.

3) He wants the Iraqis to have a stable, legitimate government.


You're allowing your bitterness to cloud your vision. Dean is right. This is the mature- and STRONG- position.

He's still laying all the blame for the problems at Bush's feet, and still maintaining that the invasion should never have taken place.

[madfloridian]

58. You must have been in another world pre-Iraq. Here are a few links.

I have many more as well. I can not believe you asked this, but I have many more when you get through with these.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0417-07.htm

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031216-114006-6931r.htm

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/dean_2-25.html

http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/2003/03/howard-deans-statement-on-presidents.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/elec04.prez.dean.bosnia/

http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2005/02/02/howard-dean-isnt-a-liberal/

http://www.hillnews.com/news/031903/dean.aspx

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Dean_Statement-On_Bushs_Iraq_Speech_Sept7_2003.htm

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/12/20/clinton_dean/

[Itsthetruth]

59. Howard Dean Doesn't Support The Anti-War Movement

I read all of the links you provided. It's clear from his statements in those links, that Howard Dean was not opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush government as a matter of principal. Dean had tactical differences with the Bush government on how the invasion and occupation has been conducted. Howard Dean favored obtaining United Nations cover for a U.S. led invasion and occupation of Iraq. George Bush, like Howard Dean, also wanted a United Nations resolution endorsing his planned invasion of Iraq but was unable to secure it. Perhaps a President Dean or President Kerry would have achieved a pro-invasion resolution. Do you think a Bush invasion of Iraq with UN approval would have been a good thing for Iraqi's?

As Howard Dean explained: "Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. We really have made it more difficult for the United States to carry out its policies by alienating practically everyone, including our friends, in regard to this matter of Iraq, and I think that's a mistake."

I would have had a big problem with a Bush government invasion of Iraq, even if conducted under the cover of a United Nations resolution.

Howard Dean urged President Bush to do a more effective job in building up support among other nations, NATO and the United Nations for his occupation of Iraq and offered suggestions on how that could be accomplished.

Howard Dean said:

"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.

A 15 minute speech is not going to convince the rest of the world that we really, truly want them to be part of this effort. The President needs to get personally involved to build a broad, international coalition. He should immediately direct his Secretary of State to get on a plane to drum up the troops and the money—and make the deals that are necessary to get our allies and friends to join us in the effort to make Iraq a better place. That is what the President's father did so successfully 13 years ago. It is high time that this President Bush follow the example set by that President Bush."

No. Howard Dean was not a consistent opponent of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. He just had some disagreements with the Bush government on how best to conduct a successful invasion and occupation of that nation with the least amount of resistance, at home and inside Iraq. And that's why Howard Dean remains an opponent of those who advocate the withdrawl of U.S. troops from Iraq and wishes the Bush government success in its efforts to destroy the insurgency.

Let's take a look at the exchange between Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean during the October 9, 2003 Democratic Party presidential debate:

KUCINICH: I'm saying that war was wrong from the beginning. We should get out of Iraq now, because we're standing there on a lie, we should bring our troops home, that's the bottom line.

Mr. Dean has said that he believes -- he says what he believes. I want to ask him, do you believe in spending $87 billion to keep our troops in Iraq? Because I don't. Do you?

DEAN: I believe if the president is serious about supporting our troops in Iraq that he has to say where he's going to get the money from, and that means he's got to get rid of $87 billion worth of the tax cuts that went to Ken Lay and his friends at Enron.

KUCINICH: Would you fund keep the troops in Iraq?

DEAN: Yes.

KUCINICH: You would?

DEAN: If the president was willing to pay for it.

KUCINICH: I would say bring our troops home, Governor.

DEAN: You can't do that. And I'll tell you why.

KUCINICH: We have to bring our troops home. They're targets right now.

DEAN: Can I tell why I disagree?

KUCINICH: Yes, finish.

DEAN: Now that we're there, we can't pull out responsibly. Because if we do, there are more al Qaeda, I believe, in Iraq today than there were before the president went in. If they establish a foothold in Iraq, or if a fundamentalist Shiite regime comes in, allied with Iran, that is a real security danger to the United States, when one did not exist before when Saddam Hussein was running the place.



And during the December 9, 2003 Democratic Party presidential debate we saw this interesting exchange:

KOPPEL: I just want to make sure that I understand Governor Dean correctly. In other words, you're saying, given where we are today, a continuing presence of some number of U.S. troops is going to be essential over a period of, what, years?

DEAN: Over a period of a few years, until the Iraqis really are able to have a democracy which is strong enough not to allow Al Qaida to emerge and has a constitution that's widely enough respected so they will not have a fundamentalist Shiite regime.

KUCINICH: Well, I'd like to take issue with something that's been said here. You know, the war's not over. The war is not over. We have 130,000 troops there. And the occupation equals a war.

Now, my plan, which I mentioned earlier, which is on a Web site at kucinich.us, and I'd like everyone to look at it, calls for the end of the occupation, for the United States to get out.

Now, the U.N. will not cooperate unless the U.S. takes a change of direction. And here's the change of direction: The Bush administration must let go of its aspirations to control the oil in Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, you can't say, as Dr. Dean has, that you're against the war but you're for the occupation.

(APPLAUSE)

Because by keeping our troops in Iraq for years, you're essentially keeping the war going.

KUCINICH: We are not stuck there, Dr. Dean. The only difference between a rut and a grave is in the dimensions. We are not stuck there.

If you want to find out more about Howard Dean's "opposition" to the invasion and occupation you might want to do a internet search for Dean's speeches at anti-war demonstrations, marches and rallies.

But, let me save you some time and energy. You won't find any. Dean didn't speak at any of the big anti-war, anti-occupation protests held in 2003, 2004 or this year! He did not even endorse any of these protests much less speak before them. He wants Bush to be successful in Iraq. I don't.

[madfloridian]

61. Kucinich is anti-war, Dean is not. He never said he was.

What the hell do you think we have been trying to tell you? Howard Dean never ever pretended or said or implied that he was against a war if we were threatened as a nation...

He was anti-Iraq war. Do you think we are fools and idiots, those of us who heard his speeches and his interviews? Though of us who donated much money and efforts to his campaign?

Where in the world did you get the idea he was ever anti-war?

Why are you blasting him....you and the Kucinich and Nader groups...why are you blasting him instead of the ones who voted?

Now that just does not make sense to me at all. I believe the two groups are trying to form a 3rd party, and it is just not the right time. It just is not. Many of us believe it will do great harm right now. And many of us think it is geared to hurt the Democratic Party.

At least blast the others as well. Ok?

[Itsthetruth]

67. Many Of Dean Supporters Were Easily Misled

"Do you think we are fools and idiots, those of us who heard his speeches and his interviews? Though of us who donated much money and efforts to his campaign?"

No. Many of Dean's supporters just didn't pay careful attention to what he actually said in support of the invasion and occupation. Many just wanted to believe Dean was and still is against the war against Iraq. That doesn't make those progressives who gave so much time and effort to Dean's campaign and later Kerry's pro-war campaign fools and idiots. Gullible would be a more accurate description of those Dean/Kerry supporters who wanted a U.S. withdrawl from Iraq. I'm sure you'll agree that even now many of Dean's supporters believed and still believe that Howard Dean was actually against the invasion and is against the occupation of Iraq today!

But since you know better, especially because you apparently support the continued occupation of Iraq. That of course places you, Howard Dean and other leaders of the Democratic Party at odds with most of the American people, the anti-Iraq war movement, many GI's and virtually everyone who can be described as a progressive that wants to bring our troops home!

[NYCGirl]

68. Seems like someone's easily misled, and it's not us Deaniacs.

Of course everyone wants to bring the troops home, the only debate is on how, when, and what needs to be accomplished before the US can withdraw.

[Itsthetruth]

70. So How Many More Wounded And Dead GI's Would Be Acceptable?

"Of course everyone wants to bring the troops home, the only debate is on how, when, and what needs to be accomplished before the US can withdraw."

How can the troops be brought home? No debate on that at all. Use planes and boats.

So the real political conflict is between those who want an end to the occupation of Iraq and want to bring our troops home and those who defend Bush's occupation of Iraq and insist we "can't cut and run" from Iraq and want to keep U.S. troops in Iraq.

Those in the ranks of the Democratic Party leadership (Dean, Clinton, Kerry, Reid, etc.,) who oppose withdrawl believe the United States government, preferably under their leadership, has a right to dictate the economic and political affairs of the Iraqi people. It's colonialism with a liberal face. They are clearly opposed to the right of self-determination and independence for people in other nations. That's one reason why you don't see them speak out loud and clear in opposition to the Bush's governments policies against Venezeula.

We saw a similiar conflict during the Vietnam War. The anti-Vietnam war movement demanded the withdrawl of U.S. troops in Vietnam. It fought against both Democratic and Republican party leaders and Presidents who insisted that they couldn't "cut and run" from Vietnam because all kinds of horrible things would happen.

In Vietnam over 50,000 GI's and over a million Vietnamese lost their lives bacause of a colonial war based upon a torrent of lies. How many more GI's and Iraq's shall lose their lives in a colonial war of occupation justified with lies and deception?

You have a right to support the imperial occupation. And the Iraqi people have a right to oppose foreign occupation domination of their nation.

If John Kerry had been elected President would the anti-war movement have to fight against President Kerry's occupation of Iraq just as we had to fight against LBJ's occupation of Vietnam? Probably. But, the anti-war movement will win this battle no matter who the President is just like we achieved success in forcing the government to withdraw from Vietnam.

[NYCGirl]

71. And you have the right to flail at straw men, too. NT

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. As many as it takes to cover the politician's sorry asses.

Whether Republican warmongers, or Democratic "not as bad as" collaborators in the imperialism.

Soldiers don't unbreak the things they've broken by breaking more things "providing security".

Dean and his cronies are still under the impression that our military are the "good guys". Just like the "heroes" who "defended" us from the Vietnamese by dropping bombs on schools and hospitals were.

[LynneSin]

49. Well it's the truth

We fucked up that country - now what.

But if we got the UN involved we could start reducing the number of troops over in that country until we can get things stabilized.

We're fucked wherever we go!

[Itsthetruth]

60. It's Not Our Business To Set-up An Iraqi Government

It's not "our" business to establish a stable regime that's acceptable to the Bush government. It's up to the Iraqi people to establish whatever kind of government and economy they wish free of foreign interference.

The only thing "we" should support is the right of self-determination and independence for Iraq. Anything else smacks of colonial rule and foreign domination.

[madfloridian]

62. Then form your 3rd party without trying to destroy the Dems.

I think I am being quite fair on that.

I may not agree with staying or going, or whatever. I don't know.

[Itsthetruth]

63. What Do You Think Should Be Done?

I don't have the power to "destroy" the Democratic Party and it seems that progressive Democrats don't have the power to change it.

What do you think should be done?

I think people who want to end the occupation should join and work together no matter what their political preferences, Greens, Democrats, Labor Party, socialists, etc.,

We can all agree to disagree on party issues while we work in unity to build the anti-war movement, the labor movement and other progressive movements.

That's what we should do. If Howard Dean and other leaders of the Democratic Party want to support progressive movements that would be just fine. I would welcome their support, but we shouldn't just sit around hoping and praying that they will come around and support us.

[madfloridian]

64. I don't know what should be done.

I really don't. I just know that anti-war groups have every right to pursue their agendas. I also know that they should equally slam the ones who supported and voted for the war, not just one of two men who had the courage to oppose it as a wrong war.

That is not happening. Progressive groups jumped on Dean's statement about not leaving. They did not take time to research or even ask if he had changed. He always said that.

Progressive groups are jumping on Dean, they should be jumping on all the Democrats who voted for it. Why not a post saying that Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Hillary, all supported the invasion. And Dean and Clark say we should not just leave. Kucinich stands alone on this. More power to him.

Just don't use the chairman of the party as a scapegoat when all are equally in agreement. At least he called Bush on this war.

[Itsthetruth]

65. That's Been Done By Many Posters

"Progressive groups are jumping on Dean, they should be jumping on all the Democrats who voted for it. Why not a post saying that Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Hillary, all supported the invasion."

When posters have done what you suggested they have been jumped on and denounced as "Naderites" and worse. Or people have tried to deny that John Kerry's vote for the war resolution meant he supported the invasion!