Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Howard Dean: A Hawk in a Dove's Cloak

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 04:49 PM
Original message
Howard Dean: A Hawk in a Dove's Cloak
If it helps, it appears the author doesn't like Kerry, either.

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

Howard Dean wants the peace movement to believe that he is its best hope for bringing change in Washington.

In television ads and presidential debates, Dean has emphasized his opposition to Bush's decision to launch a unilateral invasion of Iraq--and downplaying his support for the continued U.S. military occupation of Iraq, and his earlier waffling over whether he might have supported a war in Iraq under slightly different conditions. Dean's emphasis on his opposition to the war in Iraq also obscures his earlier support for the first Gulf War, the war in Kosovo, and the war in Afghanistan.

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...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Upfront Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. Bull--Yawn
I hope he is a Hawk for the right reasons. Just getting tired of this crap. Dean is it, face it. Do you want Bush out or not, decide people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Can we decide a candiate first
Dean isnt it for me personally, I will support him if he gets the nod but for now I got my own candiate and yes I am an idealist *bows* and am fully aware of my candiate's position in the polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
70. John, you are wise beyond your years....
along with being a tough young man who stands up to bullying tactics
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Polls are never wrong.


Especially since it is only 89 days till the New Hampshire primary. Not enought time for anyone's opinion to change... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. In context...
... your remark doesn't hold water. if there had been any movement in his numbers, I might agree with you. oh, wait, there hass been--- from 2% to 1%... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #17
29. Look in any history book - you'll see President Dewey's name there
right after Truman's :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RuB Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. I have no problems with articles like this and I'm an average Democrat
who is learned enough to know we are in a political season picking the Democratic choice for President of the U.S. to kick out the current pResident of the U.S. Why stiffle the flow of information? Its not the Democrats who are stupid, its the Republicans who can only do what their leaders tell them. Give Democrats the benifit of the doubt please? BTW I agree with you on the 'Hawk for the right reasons' line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
38. Perhaps it's good reading for new folks...
The article is very old, and has been linked to zillions of times by Kucinich supporters. You'll note that the author doesn't reference Dean's official, stated position once. Interestingly, the same author defended Dean from attacks by Kerry and Lieberman, in a more recent article last month:

Kerry, Lieberman, and the House Democratic Leadership Attack Dean

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0914-04.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #38
50. What do you mean "The article is very old and


"has been linked to zillions of times by Kucinich supporters"???

My fellow Kucinich supporters and I are indeed very future-oriented, but not so much as to have already linked to an article just published today, October 30, 2003, "zillions of times."

I think you must be mistaken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. Well some of us believe Kerry is "it"
Dean is a bit untested and scary for a lot of us and we simply don't trust him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KaraokeKarlton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
71. Untested?
Edited on Fri Oct-31-03 07:48 PM by KaraokeKarlton
Dean has a 20 year political record and up until he retired as Governor, he was the longest serving Democratic Governor in the country. He's never lost an election, was re-elected as the executive of a state 5 times and would have been again had he not retired and decided not to run. Kerry has no executive experience and American voters don't elect Senators for President, they elect Governors, Incumbent presidents and Vice Presidents.

edited by typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No More Shrub Donating Member (44 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
55. What would those reasons be?
When are we justified to change someone elses govenment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. also, "hoping" isn't a confidence builder in him or his supporters
I hope they know more about their man other than to "hope" his positions are correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'm not anti-war...
..and I don't want a president who is.

I don't agree with Bush's pre-emptive strike first policies, but I certainly want a leader who is strong on defense.

I agree that Dean isn't the anti-war candidate he has been billed as but still better him than someone who would't rise to the defense of the country.

I can just imagine the article Counterpunch would have written about FDR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. I fully admit to being a little dense this week
Someone tell me why this is bad for Dean:

In other words, Dean doesn't object so much to Bush's willingness to use military force, which he sees as indispensable to maintaining the U.S.'s political and economic position in the world, but rather he objects to Bush's refusal to play by the rules of the game and recruit a coalition of allies to support U.S. goals.

Is it really the progressive's point-of-view that the U.S. should cede it's superpower status? I don't think so. I don't know of anyone who was saying Iraq shouldn't be dealt with firmly, it was just a matter of methodology. People like myself wanted to let the inspectors continue while linking cooperation with sanctions. People like Bush wanted to go in guns blazing. There were a lot of positions in between and a few ultra-peace people who wanted to be more isolationist regarding the whole thing.

This tells me Dean wants to use the American military to protect America's poltical and economic status in the world. Which candidate doesn't? I need to know so I know who will not ever get my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. What the f***?!
"This tells me Dean wants to use the American military to protect America's poltical and economic status in the world. Which candidate doesn't? I need to know so I know who will not ever get my vote."

Last time I looked, I thought our military was to be used to repel attacks! Oops, my bad, I guess the founding fathers meant 'attacks' to mean attacks on our SUPERPOWER economic and military status.

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Attacks come in many forms
If something were to threaten our oil supply, what are we supposed to do?

If something threatened one of our key markets that allows our economy to survive, what are we supposed to do?

:puke: all you want, but I understand clearly that the lifestyle I am accustomed to is derived in a large part because we are a superpower. It is the fact that we CAN do something militarily, other nations don't take actions which would cause us to HAVE to do something militarily.

Disagree all you want. Welcome to realpolitik.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #12
57. "If something were to threaten our oil supply, what are we supposed to do"
Jeez, I'm struggling to believe you actually said that. Are you just stirring the pot? What makes it OUR oil supply? Does a guy who's an alcoholic have the right to take over the liquor store to ensure his supply?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. Thank you, Mairead.
I was really starting to feel like I was lost in space there for a while.

Why that that post has sat there for this long and not been roundly attacked and disavowed is beyond me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. Where did our founding fathers speak to the subject at ALL? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Shores of Tripoli
And didn't Thomas Jefferson send our Navy to Libya to wipe out pirates there to protect our shipping (our economic interests)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. Oy vey!
United States Constitution:
Article IV, Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. That is a mandate not a limitation
Edited on Thu Oct-30-03 05:59 PM by LuminousX
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. ROFL
You can twist 'attacks' to mean that we're going overseas to kill people because we need to protect 'our comfortable way of life', but try doing that with the text above, which is to protect states from INVASION!

Good luck!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #31
45. So Thomas Jefferson was in violation of the Constitution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. Precisely, Luscious!!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vikingking66 Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
46. Look I understand where you're coming from, but
I think there's a problem with U.S isolationism.
While it has been true that the military has been
used to oppress third world nations, especially
the Phillipines and the Mexicans, there is a legitimate
liberal need for American military intervention
abroad, and here it is:

The U.S created the very idea of international law
through collective security, through Wilson but most
fully in FDR. In doing so, it established the principle
that force should be brought to bear if necessary to enforce
the U.N Charter on human rights and the U.N Convention
on Genocide.

In situations like Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo in which
one nation or ethnic group attempts to physically
destroy another, military force is the only way to
prevent the slaughter of innocents. In such a situation,
to not act would be a betrayal of human rights and
an abandonment of the principle established at
Nuremberg that genocide will not be permitted.
The U.S' inaction in the first two instances was in
my mind the greatest failure of the Clinton presidencu.

In other occasions, such as civil wars in the Congo
or widescale domestic oppression such as in Chile and
Cambodia, international military intervention is the
only means for a people being attacked by its own government
to be saved from widespread murder. While I agree that
often it is U.S-backed dictatorships that have been
responsible for these actions, I maintain that that
does not mean that the U.S shouldn't have done anything.

I see no contradiction between liberal humanitarianism
and interventionism as long as the intervention is
a multilateral one backed by a U.N resolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #46
62. And I understand your point too, and agree.
However, there's a huge difference between humanitarian intervention and wars to protect our economic and political supremacy.

I'm not backing isolationism. I'm not even saying that we should only use our military when attacked. However, supporting a war to 'protect our oil' is really beyond the pale.

I'd like to see the things you mentioned (such as the crisis in the Congo) included as a reason to go to war. But you don't see hardly any American polticians, even the Democrats, saying word one about it.

We would all do ourselves a favor to ask why, and set about finding out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RuB Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
34. You nailed the anti Democrat propaganda exactly.
"Is it really the progressive's point-of-view that the U.S. should cede it's superpower status?"

No. Too bad the political talking heads don't refute the Republicans talking heads as succinctly as you did with your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #4
51. ultra-peace?!
"Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts. Negroes of the United States, following the people of India, have demonstrated that nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation. Sooner or later, all the peoples of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."

Martin Luther King. Jr.
From Address delivered in Acceptance of Nobel Peace Prize
10 December 1964
Oslo, Norway
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. alternative vision
"This tells me Dean wants to use the American military to protect America's poltical and economic status in the world. Which candidate doesn't? I need to know so I know who will not ever get my vote."
LuminousX


http://www.pepeace.org/tmpl/gandhi.html

The 2003 recipient of the Ghandi Peace Award is Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio).

Dennis Kucinich’s Acceptance Speech for the.- 2003 Gandhi Peace Award

I'm glad to have this moment to be with you and to express first of all my gratitude for being the recipient of the 2003 Gandhi Peace Award. It's very humbling to have my name associated with the name of a true visionary, of someone whose life was a gift to the world, and whose life many of us in public careers try to emulate. And I want to thank all of you who work to keep this fine organization going. When I first arrived, I had the opportunity to speak to many of you about your own commitments, about your work. And it's especially humbling to have the opportunity to share this evening with you, because this is your life's work too. Your life's work is dedicated to the active work on behalf of peace. There are some who think that peace is somehow a static activity. Far from it. It's a dynamic expression of the possibilities of human aspiration. For those of you who came in from New York today, who participated in the march, thank you. Please join me in thanking .

"Out on the edge of darkness there lies the peace train. Peace train, take this country, come take me home again." 30 years ago that song was written by Cat Stevens. And it's interesting how you can almost hear the rhythms come back at this moment: "Out on the edge of darkness." We look at the edge of darkness out across this water-I'm looking at the beautiful illumined gazebo, and I think of what we can do to send light to the Persian Gulf this evening.

The psalms have a phrase in Latin: "Emitte lucem tuam." Send forth your light. And we so need to do that at this moment, so that we can describe the entire Persian Gulf in light this evening, and to send the light of peace in that region. To take the light of peace which is in our hearts, and extend that light, and that love and that compassion. From my studies of the Scriptures and the Gospel of St. John, it begins, in the early verses, it speaks of the light shining in the darkness. "And the darkness grasp it not." Light always shines in the darkness. And darkness has dropped upon our country, upon our Constitution, upon our highest aspirations for America, upon our historic traditions-the light of truth will shine in that darkness, and the darkness will neither comprehend nor overwhelm it. So we are called upon at this moment, to be witnesses for peace, for truth, for light, for love, for compassion, and for the potential of humanity to evolve from a condition where some believe that war is inevitable, to a condition where our knowledge that peace is inevitable becomes the defining paradigm of a new century and a new world.

How do we get to that point. Today we're being offered a competing vision. One vision holds America as a nation involved in a Manichean struggle at war with the forces of evil. Gandhi of course said the only evil that exists in the world is that which is rattling around in our own hearts. Yet there are those who have described these images of evil, and have projected those images, as though on a large screen; and have tried to vivify them; have created enemies. That philosopher created by Walt Kelly named Pogo: "We have met the enemy and he is us!" And so this vision which is emerging from smoke and fire, digitized visions projected on our television screens today, phantasmagoria, garish phosphorescence projected into our psyches, into our hearts, creating despair, creating a vision of the world disintegrating. Not the first time this has happened in human experience, but the first time we've seen in coming from our nation waging an aggressive war. Almost a hundred years ago, William Butler Yeats described the Second Coming: "Turning and turning, in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer. All things fall apart. The center cannot hold." He wrote about an era that presaged disintegration, that presaged war, not only in Ireland but later on a world war. And today we're looking at a world where the center is not holding. Where this world view of America at war is becoming a doctrine, or reflects and derives from a doctrine, that paradoxically would be what we expect to secure our country. A national security strategy which calls for America to be the first to attack. To work preemptively. To work alone and apart from the world. To proceed unilaterally. Such a doctrine is the product of a world view, which is compartmentalized, the product of dichotomous thinking, of us versus them. And carries with it the ultimate consequence of war. Because then, "this town's not big enough for both of us." And so when might makes right, what of international law? When might makes right, what of morality? When might makes right, then the sword shall be the only measure of justice. The nuclear review is a continuation of a national security strategy which calls for first strike use of nuclear weapons. Reversing 60 years of painstaking efforts toward nuclear disarmament-nearly 60 years. The doctrine of "Shock and Awe," which we're hearing so much about these days, was taken off the shelf of the National Defense University's war studies program, and represents a selection of military strategies, all under the title of "Shock and Awe," which celebrate the various glories and desirability of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Tokyo firebombing, the B-2 bombing of Vietnam, the idea being that-and I've read the doctrine and I would urge you all to read it-the idea being that if you can create so much damage to a civilian population, as the dropping of the atomic bomb did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that people are just shocked-psychologically, physically shocked. And they're in awe. What kind of a world view or vision would want to create a doctrine which would bring fear to people all over the world. Which would raise fear to an almost biblical proportion. Which would make fear on the level of a deity.

Now we know from our studies of the Hindu religion, that the forces of destruction and the forces of creation exist simultaneously. Shiva and Vishnu exist simultaneously. We also know that we have the opportunity to be able to determine which of those forces : the forces of destruction or the forces of creation. Granted, at any point in our lives, they may be working their way simultaneously. However, as a nation, America at this very moment has become an agency of destruction in the world. As a member of Congress, I've found it daunting and even heartbreaking to see this process that pulls people in as though it were some kind of a magnetic pulsation, and causes people to support war, either through their active participation or through their silence. We search for historical antecedents, and we sometimes find them in chilling ways. Lately I've been talking to many historians who draw comparisons to the 1930s. A world view is being offered, where will trumps love. Where what the philosopher Eric Fromm called the anatomy of human destructiveness is working its way through official government policy. Where all of the work to celebrate the human condition is being trashed in favor of a doctrine of control.

We know what the darkness looks like. And now lets talk about what the light that we wish to describe looks like.

The light of peace can be brought into this world and exist in this world through compassion, acceptance, tolerance that's shared. And it's shared through affirming international structures of cooperation and governance. The importance of a United Nations is so much more evident at this moment. We realize that we're all connected, that we're all one! My politics arises from an holistic world view: we're interconnected, we're interdependent. What affects me affects you. It goes beyond the I-thou of Martin Buber and goes to the connectivity of "we are all one" that informed Gandhi's essential philosophy. Because when you wage war under those circumstances, it is not an act merely of homicide-it is an act of suicide. Because we're attacking ourselves. Because our brothers and sisters in Iraq are receiving the bombs. The world of peace can be affirmed through going back to the work that so many of us have pursued over a lifetime for nuclear disarmament. David and others have made it a life's work to implement the nonproliferation treaty. The United States can once again take a leading role in the world, in working not only for nuclear nonproliferation, but in taking a leading role in getting rid of all nuclear weapons. We have an obligation to do that. We have an obligation to future generations to do that. We have an obligation to reimplement the antiballistic missle treaty which Vladimir Putin himself took office ready to support. We have an obligation to recommit to a test ban. To begin to build down and eliminate the production of nuclear weapons. We're going in an opposite direction at this very moment, but we can once again gain that moral authority in the world. The weapons of mass destruction begin in our consciousness. And projections and physical form. The splitting of the atom was a split in consciousness in this society. And we need to heal our nation and the world, through creating a vision of a world as one. And a vision of the world as one has no room for nuclear weapons. There are 12 nations which either possess or are trying to acquire nuclear weapons. 20 nations either possessing or trying to acquire biological weapons. 26 nations either possessing or trying to acquire chemical weapons. 20 nations either possessing or trying to acquire missle technologies to deliver those weapons. Pandora's box has been opened.

But there is a power greater than all of those weapons. And it's the power of love through which the human heart expresses itself. The advancing tide is toward human unity! We saw it reflected at the beginning of the new millennium which so many of us celebrated in the year 2000. Where despite the dire predictions, people gathered peacefully all around the world, without incidents! Celebrating our humanity! Proving that we can get together around the world peacefully!

The advancing tide is toward human unity, and the technology of our society has reflected that through the connectivity of the internet, through communications, through transportation, and through trade. Every one of us has had the opportunity to connect, in our lifetimes, with people so we realize that we truly are a global village. This thinking that separates us from other nations and other people is archaic! And so as we offer a competing vision for the world, that competing vision can seek to make war itself archaic. And that, my friends, is what has animated the idea of a Department of Peace. To take the work of Gandhi, and the work of Dr. King, and the work of other great religious leaders, and to work to make nonviolence an organizing principle in our society.

This competing vision, this alternative vision, this light-filled vision which we offer, looks at our own society with love and with the understanding that we can be more than we are and better than we are. We look at the pathologies in our society of domestic violence, of spousal abuse, of child abuse. Of violence in our schools, of gangs, of police-community relations challenges, of violence against gays and violence against all types of minorities. And we begin to develop structures within our society to teach children mutuality, reciprocity, sharing, peace-giving. Some communities are already doing that. To use the very power of government itself to institutionalize that type of an approach in a society. Think for a moment how a 400 billion dollar defense budget informs the consciousness of our nation. Think for a moment, how spending anywhere from 99 billion to 1.9 trillion dollars on a war in Iraq, plus occupation, plus reconstruction, how that would inform the consciousness of our nation. Think for a moment how the agenda of America has been set. Through spending hundreds of billions in a cold war. Through spending hundreds of billions in hot wars. Through being prepared to spend up to one and a half trillion dollars on a missle defense system, which doesn't work, and even if it did, we wouldn't want it to. Think of, instead, offering the possibility of a structure within our government that would begin to offer another way, another path. That's what the Department of Peace seeks to do. On an international level, it looks at mediation, intervention nonviolently, it looks at issues of human scarcity, of poverty, and those conditions which give rise to the kind of despair which produces war. War is not inevitable! Peace is inevitable, but we have to insist on the power of our humanity to bring forth this new possibility. "Come, my friends! Tis not too late to seek a newer world!" said the poet Tennyson. "Come, my friends! Tis not too late to seek a newer world!" So while the lights twinkle across this beautiful point, while the bombs drop, and missles are launched into the city of our brothers and sisters, we realize that we have this moment in time and space where we can change the outcome! Where we are not stuck! Where we can use this power which is inside of us, this light inside of our hearts! And let that light shine, let it shine in this darkness! Let it shine in the chaos! Let it shine-and let that shine so that this alternative vision of peace, which is the vision of which our lives are made, that this alternative vision of peace, which can be the vision of which our country expresses itself, that this alternative vision of peace, that reflects the lives' work of so many who have come before us, that this shall be a vision through which the creativity, and through which the transformational energy that will bring us this new world, can be achieved.

Come my friends, tis not too late to seek a newer world.



pepeace.org/current_reprints/06/Dennis%20Kucinich.htm




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
7. The author of the article correctly points out that Dean and Kerry
have held virtually identical positions on the Iraq war issue from the beginning.


Dean:He gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html

Kerry: "If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible." http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html




Dean:"In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred."
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html

Kerry:"we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war."
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

Dean:"never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000395.html


The biggest difference is that Kerry has a workable, responsible plan for what to do now, while Dean has what can only be described as a vague and unworkable wish-list.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Kerry thought the war was justified, Dean didn't
That's the biggest difference.

Although he - like most senators - supported the war against Iraq, Mr Kerry has publicly expressed scepticism about the Bush administration's motives in pressing for the war and has criticised the failure to build a broad international coalition for the war.
BBC News Profile

Saddam Hussein made a grave error when he chose to make war with the ultimate weapons-inspections enforcement mechanism.
April 11th, 2003

That said, Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, truly the personification of evil. He has launched two wars of aggression against his neighbors, perpetrated environmental disaster, purposefully destabilized an entire region of the world, murdered tens of thousands of his own citizens, flouted the will of the United Nations and the world in acquiring weapons of mass destruction, conspired to assassinate the former President of the United States, and provided harbor and support to terrorists bent on destroying us and our friends.

From that perspective, regardless of the Administration's mishandling of so much of this situation, no President can defer the national security decisions of this country to the United Nations or any other multilateral institution or individual country.

Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any President, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats - threats both immediate and longer term - against it.

Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for twelve years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly , I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.
March 17th, 2003

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

SENATOR JOHN KERRY
George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.
May 4th, 2004

Still, Kerry said it is too early to conclude whether or not war with Iraq was justified. There needs to be a congressional investigation into U.S. intelligence on Iraq, he said.

June 18th, 2003

How could he not know if the war was justified if he didn't support it?

Kerry supported the war and said Wednesday, ''I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone.'' But the Massachusetts senator has criticized the president's diplomatic efforts. He that concern Wednesday saying Bush had alienated U.S. allies in the runup to war.
June 18, 2003

Nevermind that you may disagree that voting for this:
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. No matter how many times other people put those words in Kerry's mouth

He never did say he 'supported the war'. Neither did he say 'the war was justified'. He did say he supported the decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. Much like Dean said he had "never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."

He also said, after Bush announced the start of the war, "The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly , I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so." Much like Dean said he "devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field" at the same time -- in case you're not paying attention, the success Dean is referring to is the success of the invasion.


You could quote a thousand different sources that tell us what Kerry's position was and/or is. But the one source that is definitive -- John Kerry -- never supported Bush's actions in Iraq, leading up to the invasion, during the invasion, or during the occupation.

MATTHEWS: Were we right to go to Iraq?
KERRY: Not the way the president did it. Clearly, no, because he didn’t plan for how to win the peace. He didn’t build the kind of coalition he said he would. He didn’t keep his promises to the American people.
He promised he would respect the U.N. He promised he would, in fact, build an international coalition and he promised he would go to war as a last resort. And, Chris, one of the great lessons I learned in Vietnam is the meaning of the words “last resort.”
I think the test for a president as to whether or not you send young men or women anywhere to fight is whether you can look in the eyes of parents-if you lose one of them-and say to those parents, I tried to do everything in my power to avoid this happening to your child. But we had no choice for the security of our country. I believe the president of the United States fails that test in Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/983074.asp

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. KERRY ON IRAQ: Clearly not against invasion.
DEAN ON IRAQ: Clearly against invasion.

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade.

August 12, 2002

"There's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims." Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa.

September 06, 2002

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet." Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment.

September 18, 2002

Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.

"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them."

September 18, 2002

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."

October 31st, 2002

"I would like to at least have the president, who I think is an honest person, look us in the eye and say, 'We have evidence, here it is.' We've never heard the president of the United States say that. There is nothing but innuendo, and I want to see some hard facts."

December 22, 2002

"I do not believe the president has made the case to send American kids and grandkids to die in Iraq. And until he does that, I don't think we ought to be going into Iraq. So I think the two situations are fairly different. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. The best intelligence that anybody can find, certainly that I can find, is that it will be at least a year before he does so and maybe five years."

January 06, 2003

"I personally believe hasn’t made his case"

January 10, 2003

"These are the young men and women who will be asked to risk their lives for freedom. We certainly deserve more information before sending them off to war."

January 29, 2003

"Terrorism around the globe is a far greater danger to the United States than Iraq. We are pursuing the wrong war,"

February 5, 2003

"We ought not to resort to unilateral action unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary of State and the president have not made a case that such an imminent threat exists.''

February 12, 2003

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/5236485.htm">Feb. 22, 2003

"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. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.

February 27, 2003

What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President’s unilateral intervention in Iraq?

March 15th, 2003

"I went to Parris Island so I could look into the faces of the kids who will be sent to Iraq," Dean told a cheering lunchtime crowd in Concord, N.H. "We should always support our kids, but I do not support this president's policies and I will continue to say so."

March 18, 2003

"Anti-war Presidential candidate Howard Dean said he will not silence his criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy now that the war has begun, but he will stop the 'red meat' partisan attacks.

"No matter how strongly I oppose the President's policy, I will continue to support American troops who are now in harms way," said Dean

March 20, 2003

While Dean said he was staunchly opposed to the war and planned to continue criticizing it, he also said the United States should keep fighting, putting him at odds with other antiwar activists who have been calling for an immediate cease-fire.

''We're in. We don't have any choice now. But this is the wrong choice,'' Dean said. ''There will be some who think we should get out immediately, but I don't think that's an easy position to take.''

March 23, 2003

On day one of a Dean Presidency, I will reverse this attitude. I will tear up the Bush Doctrine. And I will steer us back into the company of the community of nations where we will exercise moral leadership once again.

April 17th, 2003

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #22
35. DEAN: KNOWN LIAR
He will say anything to get elected. And some of his supporters will say anything to get him elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. lol
you've got nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Surely you don't want me to post some of Dean's well-documented lies
again, do you? Everytime I do I'm accused of 'posting the same crap over and over'.


A blatant, well-documented, clearly intentional lie from Howard Dean
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Keep changing the subject
Kerry lies, but won't admit it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #35
48. LOL!
Now that was funny.

past meds time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Dean: "never doubted the necessity of disarming Saddam of WMDs"
Kerry said the justification was a problem AFTER more concrete reports came out showing that the books were being cooked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Dean was clearly against the invasion
Kerry was clearly not

spin it however you like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. Spin this:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #18
49. Well kerry is lying his ass off
He had the reports before he cast his vote the same reports all of this evidence is based on so far.

This is the biggest reason I will never trust this guy. He lies day after day about the fact that he didnt have the evidence and you kerry folks keep repeating the lie.

MR. RUSSERT: Unmanned aerial vehicles...
SEN. KERRY: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...a nuclear threat. Those are exactly the things that you suggested in New Hampshire President Bush had lied to you about.

MR. RUSSERT: But you had access to the intelligence. You had access to the national intelligence estimate...
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely.


He knew it was bullshit but he voted for it anyway cause he knew he was running for president and he wanted to look tough on defense

Now he uses the same inteligence report he had access to to call bush a liar but refuses to acknowledge he had the same evidence himself before he voted.

I agree bush is a liar

So is kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polpilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. Trying to indicate Kerry is Dean-like again??? 'identical' positions on
the Iraq issue'?? You'll need to go a 'teen site' to promote this babble, Fearofdean.

Dean '04...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. No. Stressing that they were SIMILAR, but Dean exaggerated his antiwar
position for political gain. He was disingenuous and at times, dishonest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polpilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Supporting Dean is stress free. Come aboard.
Dean '04...The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #24
33. Sure. Wait till the ads start using Dean's own words
Edited on Thu Oct-30-03 06:14 PM by blm
to show how many conflicting statements he makes. Too bad there's lots of ammo since Dean is talking like a populist with only a centrist record to fall back on. That's when the Deanies prove what a huge mistake was made by backing someone so loose with the truth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #24
54. No it's not. I don't want to lose.
Ignorance must be bliss though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #54
88. Kerry is the next McGovern
Or Dukakis...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
8. I want a president who will use force if NECESSARY
Dean has stated the Iraq was was not justified, then outlined scenario's in which it might be, and I agreed with his analysis.

counterpunch can bite me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. That's exactly what the counterpunch article says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. And since they have a problem with that...
They can bite me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
10. Nothing to see here...
Move along, move along.

There is no MIC. You've all been lied to.

Those wars weren't for oil or sugar or anything at all like that. No no no... clearly we were under dire threats to our SUPREMACY!

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
28. To me, the hilarious thing about this thread...
Is watching two seasoned pure-politician candidates mincing words and jumping back and forth between positions.

:7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
40. Are we really a fraud, and proud of it?
Edited on Thu Oct-30-03 06:37 PM by redqueen
It looks to me based on some comments here that war for our comfort is a welcome doctrine, even to Democrats.

What's sad is that as long as I can remember, America has been about at least some of her people pushing forward, to better realize the promise that is America.

Nowadays it seems it's more about pushing sideways, to better line our pockets and get cheap gas.

Which way do you prefer? Forward, or sideways?


George Washington, in 1793:
“Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; Cultivate peace and harmony with all. ... In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. Sympathy for the favorite Nations, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and including into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification.” – quoted in “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace”

John Quincy Adams:
“America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.” – ibid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. What comments are you referring to?
"It looks to me based on some comments here that war for our comfort is a welcome doctrine, even to Democrats. "

Could you please say what comments led you to that conclusion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Here are some quotes:
Emphasis is mine.

"Dean wants to use the American military to protect America's poltical and economic status in the world. Which candidate doesn't? I need to know so I know who will not ever get my vote."

Kucinich doesn't. He apparently subscribes to the ideals voiced by the founding fathers, as do I. There are reasons that justify wars, and then there are excuses for expanding empire. I see which ones you think are acceptable.


"If something were to threaten our oil supply, what are we supposed to do?"

Gee, I dunno, how about we get off our oil addiction?


"If something threatened one of our key markets that allows our economy to survive, what are we supposed to do?"

Issue more B-1's so we can ship more jobs to India! No wait, I mean we should enter agreements like NAFTA so our manufacturing base is gone entirely! This way, we have a deflated economy and therefore exucses for more wars! WOO HOO! /sarcasm off

I can't believe you seriously asked that question!


"I understand clearly that the lifestyle I am accustomed to is derived in a large part because we are a superpower."

"It is the fact that we CAN do something militarily, other nations don't take actions which would cause us to HAVE to do something militarily."

This part I agree with, our strength is used as a means, by its very existence, as a deterrent. I don't have a problem with that.

I have a problem with defending wars because they improve our standard of living, because it's clearly at the expense of other people. Oh wait, but they're not Americans, so SO WHAT! Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #43
63. So was Thomas Jefferson Wrong in sending the Navy to Libya?
There have been many 'wars' we have fought that we shouldn't be proud of. But there are many that we should be proud of, that were fought either to protect our interests abroad or to protect our allies (i.e. our marketplaces).

It doesn't take a genius to figure out the difference between a war of colonialism (e.g. Iraq 2002-2003) and a war to protect our interests (e.g. Iraq 1991).

You say we should 'get off our oil addiction.' Gee, if it was only that simple. Until then, our economy depends on that oil. Period. Yes, we should be doing a lot more to get off of it, but we have to deal with the reality of today, which is if some foreign nation plots to disrupt our oil supply, we had better be ready to do something about it, and that something is going to involve warfare.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. Look,
there’s a wide range of latitudes between wars to be proud of and wars to protect ‘interests’ or ‘marketplaces’.

You're right, it’s not simple to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Consider: what measures taken to do this during the rule of sainted ‘winner’ centrist Clinton? CAFÉ standards? Hello? He had TWO YEARS of a mostly Democratic congress to get this important legislation through!

That’s exactly my point. NOTHING is done to reduce our dependence, while EVERYTHING is done to kowtow to warmongering right-wingers.

Our party is not being pulled rightward by the electorate. (Traitorous) Parts of it are following the money there, and helping the far right to lead the country there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Just because we haven't fixed our dependence
Doesn't mean we can stop protecting our supply. All of the candidates have an environmental/energy platform that talks about making us energy independent. All the plans are 10 to 15 year type plans. So in that 10 to 15 years, do we cease to protect our supply?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. Why do you keep calling it "OUR supply"?
That kind of thinking has to GO. That's imperialism at its core. The belief that somehow, the resources of the world are yours to seek out, use, and profit from.

The fact that 10-15 year type plans are being used now should be a wake up call to Democrats.

The CAFE standards were stopped by Reagan. AFAIK, no Democrat since then has done much to revive them. I really need to look at what was done under Clinton.

And yes, we cease 'protecting OUR supply' when / if we no longer need it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. Our Supply = the Oil we count on to keep our standard of living
Right now my stove is running on natural gas as is the hot water heater that gives me good showers. I take the 'El' to work, but all the goods in the grocery store are delivered by vehicles running on gas.

You agree that as long as our entire economy and standard of living is dependent upon oil, that we need to protect THAT supply. (Can I call it ours because we've paid for it, or does that go against the communist concept that there is no property?)

When Russia moved missiles into Cuba, was it wrong for Kennedy to threaten to invade?

I don't want a President who will roll over out of fear of using military force to protect U.S. interests. Does this mean we prop up dictators and tyrants? No. We can pursue a much better foreign policy, but as Teddy Roosevelt said, 'Talk softly, and carry a big stick.'

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #68
74. are you seriously suggesting
that the US has the right to kill other people to protect a cheap supply of fossil fuels? Or other natural resources? That is exactly the reason we have supported tyrants and dictators around the globe: to secure the supply of raw materials we need to support our life style - and to hell with anything else. It is also at the root of the hatred and contempt felt for us around the world. And since it seems abundantly clear that that was why we went to war in Iraq...to secure a supply of the regions oil and to profit Halleburten et all...what exactly would be the difference between THIS war, and a war for the reasons you put forward?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. Are you seriously suggesting
That if a foreign power took control over the supply lines by which we get our oil that we wouldn't do something about it militarily?

WHY DOESN'T ANYONE ANSWER THAT QUESTION?

What would you have the U.S. do if our (the oil that we have purchased) oil supply is disrupted by the military action of a foreign power?

Am I saying the U.S. should kill people to protect our economy? Yes. Do any of the candidates agree with me? God, I hope so. Gore voted for the first Iraq war, so at least he understands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #74
77. Which candidate will openly say, "America, if our lifestyle is threatened,
we'll just give up."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #77
84. well, no one calling him/herself a "peace candidate"
is going to come out as bluntly as you have in favor of imperialist wars of exploitation. But don't worry...they will do it, whether they say so in plain language or not. We've been doing it for a long time. Why else do we need a military XXtimes larger than the next XXcountries combined?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #84
89. imperialist wars of exploitation
Don't put words in my mouth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. I would be interested
in how you would describe killing people in other countries to protect cheap raw materials for US corporations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snoochie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #90
93. Well? I'm interested to hear the answer to that as well. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #90
94. First, explain to me how you would like to see situations handled?
No one has weighed in on Thomas Jefferson's use of the Navy to fight Libyan pirates.

No one has explained to me that is would be a good thing just to let some foreign power stop our oil supply. Is it? Would it be a good thing if the U.S. suddenly didn't have access to the resources it needs to continue as the United States?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. If by "situations" you mean
the exploitation, oppression, and outright war upon other countries to benefit US business interests, I can hardly claim to have all the answers. But a few first steps might be refraining from using our CIA and armed forces (and spending American lives in the process) to overthrow populist leaders or maintain murdering dictators, and signing international labor agreements with fair labor and human rights provisions. I am sure we could find ways to go on from there. Believe me, I like my cheap hot water as much as the next person, I just don't believe I have a right to it at the expense of appalling poverty, torture, and death under US bombs for others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
42. I read every one of these threads
because I would really like to find a reason to support Dean. First, because I admire the organizing job his campaign has done, and second because he might be the nominee. And every time I read about one of his "stances" I find less and less to admire. Now, the candidate who was lauded for his "principled" stand on Iraq is lauded because he is willing to go to war "to protect our political and economic interests." Using force to protect our political and economic interests is something I-and everyone I admire - oppose. It is the reason we have supported murderous, torturing dictators around the globe. It is the reason we are feared and loathed aroung the globe. A fear and loathing for which we will inevitably pay the price. Someone remind me exactly what about this candidate is in ANY way progressive? And why his supporters think the DLC would not be perfectly happy to have him as a candidate? I can't see that any of his stances pose any challenge at all to the status quo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pez Donating Member (522 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. kerry would never do that
in the interest of national security he would apply diplomacy before considering waging war.

he has decades of experience, and even wrote a frikkin book on it. since kerry's running-- someone who has experience, vision, and can explain every position in detail-- i don't see any reason to play a round of presidential russian roulette this time around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-03 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. But he'd "trust" an opposition Prez surrounded by hawks to "Do the
right thing"?

Please....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #47
56. Dean: "I tend to believe the President" -MTP 6/22/03
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #56
67. Don't you?
It all depends on what he says. Kerry believe him when Senator Byrd was saying don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigo32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #44
61. Umm are you implying Dean wouldn't apply Diplomacy now?
this just gets weirder and weirder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
53. This guy is not especially fond of Clark either.
http://www.counterpunch.org/donahue10012003.html

Maybe he doesn't like any of them.
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SahaleArm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #53
73. Andrew Cockburn...
Edited on Fri Oct-31-03 09:19 PM by SahaleArm
and Counterpunch are equal opputunity bashers. Contrarians!:).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
58. Not only a hawk but, saddeningly, a chickenhawk
Which fits remarkably well with his 'pragmatic', 'centrist' philosophy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #58
69. I can't seem to recall...
... whether DK was slogging around a rice paddy in 'nam, atm. Care to refresh my memory?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snoochie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #69
79. He has a heart condition.
And no, he didn't go skiing a week after it was diagnosed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #79
82. LOL!
"My medical deferment can beat up YOUR medical deferment!" LMAO! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #82
85. The difference is significant
Dennis's knocked him out of sport in HS; Dean's very definitely did not.

Dennis would never have been accepted as a volunteer because his heart murmur would certainly have been found during the induction physical; Dean's back problem would never have even been suspected much less found since he's obviously an unusually robust, physical guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #85
87. Perhaps.
My only point was that being medically-ineligible is the same, no matter what; the military wants 'prime' beef, so to speak. If you have a problem that they have to fix, or one that might get you or your fellow soldiers killed/injured OR which might ultimately form the basis for a disability pension, they'll reject you. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-03 04:25 AM
Response to Reply #87
96. Spin it as much as you like, the fact remains that he's a chickenhawk
because he ducked out when he needn't have, and when kids whose families weren't wealthy enough to ever have that 'twinge' diagnosed were drafted and went over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #58
72. Hell No! We Wont Go! Let's Hit The Snow!
that Howie...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSoundAndVision Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
75. V ery opinionated piece, interpretive, not very evidential, but..
it is interesting to note who Dean has tapped as his staff. Anyway, I don't need evidence to doubt the populist sincerity of Howard Dean, I have his mouth and method already doing that. Example, his subsidizing of small businesses to help our economy: why, so that the guy down the street can sell goods made from slave labor in Taiwan. No, cancel NAFTA and the WTO! Bring our manufacturing jobs back home, shoes worn in America, made in America, and may the quality product win. So, visit http://www.kucinich.us and join us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
78. Dean's support for giving the $87 billion to Halliburton is proof
that he is a hawk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 01:50 AM
Response to Original message
80. I am still in shock
That Howard Dean wears a toupee! that kinda does it for me, Sorry!

discussion going on right here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=72977
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 05:43 AM
Response to Reply #80
81. Is that actually Dean in the photo?
It does look like him, but I really can't tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #81
83. No.
That's Jimmy Buffet, Mairead. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #83
86. Thanks...I know who Buffet is, and like some of his music, but
had no idea what he looks like. Far out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigo32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #86
91. There definitely a resemblence there though
isn't there LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
92. Good, then he wont be percieved as weak on defense as some would conclude.
:toast:

Counterpoint has many pro Kucinich articles, so their bias is clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC