or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › Dean is no dove............
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dean is no dove............

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 
This past week the candidates took turns addressing the Communications Workers of America. Dean appeared the same day as Lieberman, Tuesday. On Wednesday's news all I heared repeated over and over was Dean saying that he was the ONLY democratic candidate that opposed the war in Iraq! That is a lie. Kucinich, who actually sits in congress, abstained from the vote. He did NOT support it.

This got me so angry I spent some time last night searching stories. I found this column and thought it was a perspective worth sharing here.

You know I do not support Dean. I am finding many inconsistencies in his campaign. Here is one more:


"'I don't even consider myself a dove,' he told me and my colleague Ruth Marcus during a conversation before the rally…. It's true that he opposed the war in Iraq, he says, but he supported the 1991 Gulf War and the Bush campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan. More interesting, at a time when many politicians are shuddering at President Bush's ambitions to remake the Middle East – conservatives, because they are skeptical of such grand reshaping ambitions; liberals, because they see resources being diverted from social causes at home – Dean sounds if anything more committed than Condoleezza Rice to bringing democracy to Iraq.
"'Now that we're there, we're stuck,' he said. Bush took an 'enormous risk' that through war the United States could replace Saddam Hussein and the 'small danger' he presented to the United States with something better and safer. The gamble was 'foolish;' and 'wrong.' But whoever will be elected in 2004 has to live with it. 'We have no choice. It's a matter of national security. If we leave and we don't get a democracy in Iraq, the result is very significant danger to the United States.'"
So, no pulling out of Iraq if he is elected..................
(Vietnam was the same.....we were "stuck")

I read article also wherein he said he was stronger on defense than Bush !!!! (I'll try to find link)

post #2 of 9
So, El, maybe this is a new thread and not specifically on topic, but does that mean you favor pulling out of Iraq ASAP?

I mean, no matter what you thought of the war, fact is (as I see it, anyway) the US has demolished the government of Iraq and has great responsibility to make whole what it has broken. Meaning the responsibility to see the Iraqis on their feet before riding off into the sunset.

So as far as I've seen, that's where Dean's at. So is that so awful?

At this point, being in Iraq isn't a dove v. hawk issue. It's a humanitarian issue entirely.

IMHO, of course.
post #3 of 9

Uhm, what color is the sky in "Justin's" world?

Seems he should educate himself a bit about international law.

And, while he's at it, he should learn about Howard Dean's actual position on the issues...

Dean defense.org

Dean for America

Hey Els

There is an interesting discussion taking place on DU also.


post #4 of 9
Thread Starter 
Do you think the admin did not realize that once in, we were "stuck" ? The end justifies the means?

Did you read the link? There is a tad more to it than the quotes I put up. He supported GW I and the Afghanistan war. I am saying he is no dove.

I feel we need to do what we can to help the Iraqis establish their own gov't. Dean thinks as long as they do what we tell them they will be OK. That is the admins thinking and I feel it only rubs salt in the wounds.

I feel the UN should be back in the mix. (never should have been out of it)

What are we going to do in Iraq that we have not been able to accomplish in Afghanistan?

What is staying in country longer going to accomplish other than having more soldiers killed?

We won't pull out bcuz we might look like we were saying we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

So, Amy, what do you think we should do?

post #5 of 9
Thread Starter 

Hi Devi !! I've missed you!!

Where've you been? DU?

As I said in the OP, I am already sick of the incorrect, non-factual soundbites that are floating around...............

Mr. Dean should acknowledge that not all of his opponents supported the war or he should keep his mouth shut.

Candidates should have some integrity while campaigning, imo.

Amy, I've missed you too. But I know you are focusing your energies elsewhere.

post #6 of 9


Hey there Els/ladies...I've been limiting 'box' time a bit, and posting on DU. It's a great place to learn/debate...Though I've missed y'all too!

Regarding your op....

I know Dean doesn't always think before he speaks, but I don't think his intent is to mislead. He speaks off the cuff, no scripts or speeches. With that you get a human being KWIM? I would be surprised if he said the 'only' candidate to oppose the war, if he did, I am sure he meant...he is the only top tier candidate to oppose the war? But, I would like to see him polish a bit.

*BTW, He and Kucinich and Graham and Sharpton and Braun all opposed the war. That's actually the majority of Dem candidates.*

Also interesting to note that Dean and Kucinich seem to have similar positions on the Iraqi reconstruction, but have a different way of explaining themselves.

Here is Deans plan...


Key points below:

* A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.

* Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.

Kucinich seems to be saying much the same. That we need to bring in the UN etc... The main difference is the language. Dennis says 'bring our troops home' but an international force would include at least some Americans, thus Dean says the troops will have to stay until it's secure, KWIM?

Ok, I'm out of here gang. Carry on....

post #7 of 9

Mike Hersh Rebuttal...

Re: THE DEAN DECEPTION - it's not credible

Many Bush supporters and a few misguided supporters of other
Democrats are attacking Democratic contenders. I understand right wing Republicans bashing us with lies. That's what those people always do. They are frightened by life, confused by powers they can't understand, and they willingly support elites who screw us over time after time.

I accept that many Democrats prefer one candidate over all the
others. I have my favorite. That's not a problem I understand heated rivalry, but I can't see why any progressive, liberal or Democrat would help Karl Rove screw over the planet. Still some people keep echoing and amplifying attacks from obscure little blogs and articles by extremists on the far left and the radical right.

Why quote people who only agree that whoever the Democrats
nominate should lose? Why trust the CounterPunch Bunch,
pseudo-libertarian right wingers and other known liars who revile Paul Wellstone and everything he stood for? Ask yourself who will this help in November 2004?

Sadly some people become unwitting pawns of forces who hate
Democrats and hurt all of us in desperate efforts to tar rival Democrats. They think they're helping in the fight against Bush by helping Bush. Why? If you don't want Bush to win this time what he stole last time, it makes no sense.

The article titled "The Dean Deception" is just not credible,
and so I will not link to it or quote from it. If you've seen it or if
you see it, consider this: Not only does it lack direct quotes in
context or facts, it suffers from profound and fatal idiosyncrasy - at best. This is what I mean:

A few weeks ago, the same guy who wrote this dishonest attack
against Dean wrote an article praising Dean. That's a pretty quick turn around. One day he's a Dean supporter. The next, he hates Dean. How did that happen?

According to the author, he was backing Dean. Then he ran into
some liberals manning a Dean table and because he arrogantly thinks liberals are stupid, and because they emphasized Dean supports national health care and a bunch of other liberal things, he's turned against Dean. This is a thought process only flip-flop fans could appreciate.

Clearly the "Greens4Kucinich" should support their candidate of
choice, but equally clearly they didn't really read the article! As a
pseudo-libertarian, the writer hates all social programs. He
hates Kucinich's social programs and the social programs of the other Democrats too.

He's like the wind - he blows one way then the other way. Who
knows who this person will support only turn against next? Maybe he'll hook up with Kucinich until he sees Kucinich supports national health just as much as Dean does. Who really cares what he thinks today? It has no bearing on what he'll think tomorrow.

The point is, we should not wittingly or unwittingly help Bush
by sending and resending dishonest and desperate attacks against each others' candidates. Remember, we don't just want to win a primary. That's not enough.

We HAVE to beat Bush barely a year from now. We don't have time to waste futzing around and slashing each others' throat. Run to beat Bush, not each other. Never forget we're on the same side. Bush is the enemy.

Unity for victory in November 2004.

Sorry if it doesn't paste in here so well. I can't find the original to link?
post #8 of 9
Who was saying he was a dove in the first place?? I never believed he was a dove. Dove= against war anytime anywhere. Maybe you have a different definition.

As far as him saying he is the only candidate against the war. We know that isn't really true. But it honestly doesn't bother me that much.

Regarding "we are in now" and no immediate withdrawl from Iraq, he is right IMO. I don't think we can withdraw tomarrow. Although I don't think that we should make a "generational" committment. I said 8 or so months ago when we had that poll on how long the war would last, that it would be years. Many many people voted weeks. uh huh, didn't see that happen.

I personally think that if we just retreated now that we would be in a worse situation than when Saddam was in power. As much as he didn't like us he wasn't much of a threat (contrary to the made up evidence). Who would be the new leaders?
post #9 of 9
On Wednesday's news all I heared repeated over and over was Dean saying that he was the ONLY democratic candidate that opposed the war in Iraq! That is a lie. Kucinich, who actually sits in congress, abstained from the vote. He did NOT support it.
But opposition, support & "neutral" (abstain) are very different. Since switzerland was neutral in WWII, does that mean they were "against" Germany? No, no more than it means they were "against" the US. They were neutral. If Kucinich abstained, then he didn't OPPOSE.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism Archives
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › Dean is no dove............