Open Letter to Tom Hayden, Dennis Kucinich, PDAmerica, et. al.

[Eloriel]

Contrary to popular belief, Howard Dean's position on the Iraq war and occupation have been consistent from the get-go. Following is just the first piece of documentation I happened across as I dipped into some of my old files, in a thread from September, 2003:

Excerpt from:
Extremely massive information dump on Gov. Howard Dean, M.D. (v2.0)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=41214

Iraq occupation (debate of September, 4, 2003)
…
RAY SUAREZ: And I'll begin tonight's questioning with Governor Dean. The United States is now trying to get help from the United Nations in the form of a resolution to internationalize the mission in Iraq. How much decision-making power can the United States share, while at the same time urging other countries to share the cost and share the risk of being there?

HOWARD DEAN: Well, as you know, I believed from the beginning that we should not go into Iraq without the United Nations as our partner. And in this situation, fortunately the president is finally beginning to see the light. We cannot do this by ourselves, we cannot have an American occupation and reconstruction. We have to have a reconstruction of Iraq with the United Nations, with NATO, and preferably with Muslim troops, particularly Arabic-speaking troops from our allies such as Egypt and Morocco.

We cannot have American troops serving under United Nations command. We have never done that before. But we can have American troops serving under American command, and it's very clear to me that in order to get the United Nations and NATO into Iraq, this president is going to have to go back to the very people he humiliated, our allies, on the way into Iraq, and hope that they will now agree with us that we were wrong to go--excuse me--that they will now agree with us that we need their help there. We were wrong to go in without the United Nations, now we need their help, and that's not a surprise.
…
Governor Dean?
(Speaking in Spanish)
We are spending more than $4 billion a month in Iraq. Do we send more troops?

HOWARD DEAN: Look, I think the most important aspect and the most important quality for any chief executive when they're executing foreign policy is judgment.

I supported the first war in Iraq because one of our allies was invaded, and I thought we had a responsibility to defend them. I supported the war in Afghanistan; 3,000 of our people were murdered. They would have murdered more if they could have. I thought we had a right to defend the United States of America. But in the case of Iraq, the president told us that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were about to make a deal or were making a deal. The truth is, there are more likely to be people from Al Qaeda bombing Iraqis and Americans today than there were before Saddam Hussein was kicked out.

Secondly, the president told us that Iraq was buying uranium from Africa. That wasn't true. The vice president told us that the Iraqis were about to get atomic weapons. That turned out not to be true. The secretary of defense told us he knew exactly where the weapons of mass destruction were, right around Tikrit and Baghdad. That turned out to be false as well.

As commander in chief of the United States military, I will never hesitate to send troops anywhere in the world to defend the United States of America. But as commander in chief of the United States military I will never send our sons and daughters and our brothers and sisters to a foreign country in harm's way without telling the truth to the American people about why they're going there. And that judgment needs to be made first, not afterwards.

We need more troops. They're going to be foreign troops, as they should have been in the first place, not American troops. Ours need to come home.
…
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debate03/part2.html

So, it's clear from this, or should be, that he's NOT anti-war and never has been since this part in bold italic was standard, pretty much verbatim Dean stump speech material I heard him say 100 times if I heard him say it once. AND, as can also be seen from this, his position has been to internationalize the occupation, esp. with Arab-speaking troops, stabilize Iraq and withdraw U.S. troops, also something he repeated often.

I see NOTHING here, in his remarks from the September debate, that is inconsistent with his position now or at any time in the past.

Why is his position on Iraq and the occupation suddenly a matter of controversy? It's NEVER been unclear, never.

WHY, when Dean has NO policy input whatsoever and precious little influence on people who DO have policy input (Reid and Pelosi), are people trying to make Dean "at fault" here or somehow responsible for changing everything (like the whole bleepin' world, starting with Iraq), or someone to be criticized for anything at all in regards to Iraq?

He IS entitled to his own positions on things, and he still has a wide following. As he goes around to various states -- RED states where DNC Chairs have barely flown over let alone visited for years, he's raising money because of his popularity (and that may be the rub for some of his critics, frankly), still getting standing room only crowds to hear him speak and threby raising money for the local party organizations instead of his own campaign or his DFA (which he LEFT completely to take the DNC position).

Once elected Dean didn't waste a single minute getting on the road and is still demonstrating the same passion, dedication and sheer physical stamina in his travels that he displayed during the campaign. I just don't get it why he's being criticized now for something that isn't even his business to attend to. (Well, actually, I do get it.) But to me, it's like criticizing a dog because it's not a fish. He's DOING his job -- working HARD to get the party organized and viable in all 50 states. Do you folks understand that in some states there is barely a state party organization at all? Policy is up to Reid and Pelosi; THEY made that very clear and everyone here knows it.

Critics of Bush's occupation policy should go after Reid and Pelosi to effect change. Dennis Kucinich knows this. WHY is he going after Dean? And if he thinks Dean should be doing something different WHY is he going after Dean publicly instead of simply picking up the phone?

Why is PDA trafficking in misrepresetantations about Dean when Dean's position on Iraq has never been a secret, never been as "nuanced" as a certain other candidate's position, never been inconsistent, and has NOT recently changed in any way?

What's going on and why?



Edited: corrected spelling of Hayden's name

[Guaranteed]

1. OUTSTANDING post.

All true.

Back to REALITY.

[madfloridian]

2. Thanks, I had lost that first link. That is a treasure. I saved it.

Wow, I have added a lot to my hard drive today. :hi:

[LittleClarkie]

3. Maybe the Greenocrats are getting grumpy

I don't know, but suspect that those who are not IN the party are not all that interested in seeing it grow up big and strong.

I don't mind disagreements, but don't portray the man as a coward or as having changed his position.

If they think he's changed, they weren't listening in the first place, or they were listening to the wrong people, like say right wing media.

I'm glad he hasn't poked his head out to address this. Just keep doing what you're doing, Howard. He's staying focused. That is good.

[Eloriel]

13. Thank you, I agree so totally

I don't care if people disagree, but it drives me absolutely nuts when they LIE or misrepresent or promote falsehoods and inaccuracies.

Just tell the truth. Be honest, that's all. Disagree all you want; criticize all you want as long as you do it HONESTLY. Don't make stuff up.

Even tho I used to mostly stay out of Kerry threads during the primary, there were times I stepped up to the plate to correct people who posted inaccuracies (or outright lies) about Kerry, too. I can't stand untruths and inaccuracies and misrepresentations.

[LittleClarkie]

14. I appreciate your "stepping up to the plate" in that way

I think we all know I'll jump into a Kerry thread for that purpose anytime. But I've also wandered into Dean and Clark threads to stand up for fairness on their behalf as well.

We're not apologists. We're not making excuses. We're just presenting the facts.

Not to mention that when I say I stand up for unity, I mean it.

[Eloriel]

30. Yes you have

and *I* have noted it, and hold you in high regard because of it:

But I've also wandered into Dean and Clark threads to stand up for fairness on their behalf as well.

[mzmolly]

87. Here here!

:toast: I love rational people. :hug:

[Carolab]

4. Excellent statement, Eloriel, and absolutely true.

There are turf wars afoot here, and everyone is jealous of Dean's support and following. You are correct; Dean is DOING his job and doing it in his usual TIRELESS and INIMITABLE fashion, speaking the truth and being 100% consistent.

Dean's position NEVER changed on Iraq; you are right. To make it seem so now is a TRANSPARENT attempt to fracture the party so that one faction or another can TAKE CONTROL AWAY FROM THE GRASSROOTS, which is EXACTLY where DEAN wants it to be!!!

He said, and I QUOTE, "THIS NEEDS TO BE THE PARTY OF GRASSROOTS ACTIVISM".

THAT SCARES THE SHIT OUT OF SOME PEOPLE AND I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHO.

On edit: Dean's position with regard to staying put has always been the same. He said that we needed UN and NATO involvement as well as CREDIBLE Iraqi leaders and support from allies and Arab-speaking nations. He explained in a recent speech for the ACLU, which I attended, that we cannot leave for the near term because going into Iraq in the first place created a greater security risk for the US and if we leave without the above taking place Al Qaeda has an even stronger recruitment tool and will rebuild with force in the Sunni triangle, while meanwhile the Kurds continue to pursue their struggle for independence (with, I might add, the support of Syria and Israel). Of course, Dean's premise only holds water IF the conditions he set forth are in place; for that to happen, you would need a responsible administration that wants to work with the rest of the world and has no long-term selfish interests to protect in the M.E. The way things stand, the Bush administration is happily encouraging the insurgency and allowing the Iraqi factions to blow one another up instead of requiring U.S. and allied soldiers to do it. They are attempting to dismantle the UN and NATO. Howard should go back to his earlier statements, and repeat that a responsible DEMOCRATIC candidate would follow his "prescription", whereas Republicans have NO interest in doing the "right thing" in Iraq.

[Totally Committed]

5. Great post!

Well written, and a darned good read.

I have admired Kucinich and Hayden for years, but believe they are both wrong in this case. Howard Dean, love him or hate him, is not a hypocrite. He says it like it is and the world be damned. I have always liked him for that. I may not have always agreed with him, but I have always felt there was no subtext with him, and I admire that.

Thanks for this post. There are a lot more things I hope Howard gets to with the DNC, but I think, from all that I have read, he is doing a fine job.

What everyone has to remember is this: He is speaking for the entire Party now, not just himself. He is going to have a hard enough time unifying this unrul lot as it is. People need to get off his back and let him run things for a while.

TC

[David Zephyr]

171. I saw nothing where Hayden called Dean a "hypocrite".

I am also a long-time admirer of Tom (nearly 40 years) and was active in Howard's primary campaign in 2004.

Kucinich's letter to Dean did surprise me and the fact that it came right after Hayden's does not make the two "open letters" the same in context or intent.

Where did you pick up that Hayden was calling Dean a hypocrite? :shrug:

[JHBowden]

6. Who cares if Dean is consistent!

A phased withdrawal looks increasingly reasonable as time progresses. We should be able to tell if the democracy thing is going to work in a few months, so I don't understand the "stay the course infinity" platitudes that are so common.

[Eloriel]

7. Do you imagine that you disagree with Dean or something?

I don't quite understand your post, from the subject line right on through. :wtf:

I feel certain that if a phased withdrawal did, indeed, seem plausible -- AND responsible for all concerned -- that Dean would be all for it.

In fact, I was also reading in that old Sept. thread, a post with another excerpt in which he wouldn't fall for Joe Klein's trap to answer a hypothetical question about withdrawing troops because Dean didn't have all the intel about on the ground conditions and safety of the troops would be an issue on a phased withdrawal (with published timetables, etc.), so you can bet any withdrawal would indeed have to be a responsible one for Dean to agree that it's a good idea.

[Carolab]

8. Dean doesn't support "stay the course to infinity" platitudes.

Go back up and re-read where he DOES stand.

[LizW]

9. Thanks for this excellent post. n/t

[Darranar]

10. Ah, I see. We shouldn't murder and repress Iraqis alone...

We should get allies to help us do it.

If Dean thinks that Iraq is a bad policy, why continue it?

You are right though that by no means Dean is the greatest problem, there are others who are more significant. His appointment was a step in the right direction - but merely a step.

[Eloriel]

11. Yeah, right

he was all for killing lots and lots of Iraqis and other little brown people. Pro-war all the way.

/sarcasm

Glad you at least think his chairmanship is a good thing.

[Carolab]

12. He said as "peace keepers", not COMBAT SOLDIERS.

Stop putting words in his mouth.

READ WHAT HE SAID.

[LittleClarkie]

16. It's next on the reading list after "My Pet Goat"

I am SO getting deleted for that. But it was there. I HAD to take it. Don't you see!

[Carolab]

18. So you had to take a cheap shot at him rather than saying nothing.

I see, very mature.

[LittleClarkie]

23. Hey, what are you complaining about

It was a cheap shot on behalf of Dean.

And when given the choice between being quiet and being a wise ass, I will generally pick the latter. Call it what you will.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[LittleClarkie]

172. Hrrr?

Replay.

Darranar made a comment about Dean.

You told him to read what Dean has said because he wasn't stating Dean's position correctly.

I quipped that Darranar would get to it right after he finished "My Pet Goat."

I was being a big meany, risking deletion because I was insinuating that our fellow DUer, Darranar, was still reading children's books and so probably hadn't gotten around to reading what Dr. Dean's writings.

What ARE you upset about exactly? Could you run it past me one more time? Because you've lost me now. Have you not noticed that I've been creeping into these threads to DEFEND Dean? Would you rather I NOT do that anymore. Is defending Dean only for Deaniacs. Well, screw that. He's my DNC Chairman, and I'll defend him too if I feel like it.

You were saying?

[Crunchy Frog]

201. Well said LittleClarkie!

The primaries are over for God's sake. Howard Dean is DNC Chair and he belongs to all of us now. Deal with it. Sheesh!:eyes:

[Darranar]

22. He can call them what he wants...

Bush, for instance, calls them "liberators."

That doesn't change what they are.

[Kevin Spidel]

15. "PDA trafficking in misrepresentations"

To answer your question, Dean's position is being focused on now because he is the leader of the Democratic Party. Before he was a candidate and then an ex-candidate, but now he is in the captain's chair. Issues like this are properly addressed to him.

As for PDA being disingenuous, I already attempted to explain that. I will do so again, and for those who don't get what Eloriel is referencing, I will be detailed. Some weeks ago, I posted a poll in GD about Dean's statement regarding staying in Iraq. One of the poll choices was 'What a flip-flopper!' which generated a lot of anger, because Dean has been consistent down the line as to his position.

This was my error, and I admitted it several times in that thread. All of the poll choices were cut-and-paste statements PDA received from our grassroots crew. I put them in the poll to see where DU was coming from, but my bad mistake was not saying that these poll statements came from our activists.

It made it seem like PDA was calling Dean a flip-flopper, which we were not. By the time I realized my error, it was past time for editing. To be clear, this was my mistake and my mistake alone. It did not and does not represent PDAs opinion on Dean. We worked very hard to help him get the Chairmanship, and would not do anything to intentionally distort his position. I apologized for this before, and will do so again.

One last thought: You and some others always say again and again that Dean has been consistent in his position on staying in Iraq for a long time now, and this is true. But I don't know what that has to do with anything. I think Dean is wrong on this, but you seem to state that it's OK because he's been consistently wrong since the invasion. I don't get it.

[Carolab]

19. Kevin, show me ONE instance when Dean has been wrong.

He has been accused of being wrong at other times and for other statements and he has always been proven right in the end.

Furthermore, it was made CLEAR, as Eloriel said, that Dean was told NOT to set policy. For him to make a statement on getting out/staying in in Iraq in his official capacity as DNC Chair would earn him the wrath of Pelosi, Reid, et al.

The statements that he HAS made concerning the war have been made when he was NOT speaking in his official role as DNC Chair, for example, when he was speaking as a guest for the ACLU about "civil rights". He made it clear when he made those statements at that ACLU speech that he was going to talk a bit about the party, but that was NOT the reason he had agreed to speak there. In fact, he had made the commitment for that speech long before he became DNC chair.

[eridani]

27. If he isn't supposed to discuss policy, then why--

--did he wish Bush 'tremendous success' without offering a definintion of success other than the Bush definition?

[LittleClarkie]

47. The word was "set" policy

not "discus" policy.

He can discus policy all he wants, but it's not the job of the DNC chair to set the policy of the Democratic Party.

Considering the major primary contenders this last year were pretty darn close in their stances on Iraq, I'd say he's not far off of standard Dem policy. He has his own way of speaking about it is all. He tends to reframe the issue to something that makes sense to him, I think, which I must say can be interesting at times.

[Maerie]

93. Great post

Exactly what I was thinking this a.m. Bush is hypocritical and responsible for these horrors at Abu Graib since he is president.
As for Dean he never said we should get out of that Hell that is by all accounts far worse than any imagined by humans.

Dennis in 2008

[CWebster]

68. Who cares if it pisses off Pelosi and Reid

What are we supposed to do, prostrate ourselves before their thrones, because they utter the final judgement?

What is this obeisance, this pathetic defernce to "policy" that may not reflect on - or in anyway intersect with the reality for the 25 dollar contributor whose issues get drowned out by the fat cats with the fat bribes.

Now, I want to know, for those of you who simply assume that Dean has to echo the DLC as "official" policy, what Democratic party does he represent? Us or them?

[Carolab]

129. I agree with this. But Dean is a man of integrity.

He made his promises and he is keeping them. Get it?

[CWebster]

132. His promises to who? Bush?

Get it?

[Carolab]

133. WTF? Suggest you read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1764709

Here's just ONE critical snip (but please read it all):

"That's when I realized I had been wrong about Dean. He wasn't the one who had changed; it was only my perceptions that had changed.

I now find Howard Dean to be a remarkably consistent person. For example, his position on the war has been rock-solid in terms of its consistency. He had always been an outspoken critic of the war, and he never would have voted to authorize the war and he certainly never would have invaded Iraq. But he has always taken the position that we must finish the incompetent job that Bush so immorally started. He has never taken the position that we need to pull out our troops immediately, because doing so would cause utter chaos and complete the abdication of personal responsibility that so elegantly symbolizes the Republicans. Howard Dean cares about the Iraqi people, and he cares about the standing of the United States in the international community. His eloquent comments just the other day in Australia bear strong testimony to this fact.

So I suppose I have to wonder why a sizable contingent on the left is now taking Dean to task, when they once viewed him as their bannerman against the war. My own personal theory is that back during the primaries, Dean represented the outsider, which is exactly how many on the left feel, so very often. They could relate to Dean. Dean was the cool indie band, the one who sang songs with passion and fire and no one was going to shut him up. His lyrics were powerful, but his melodies were even more powerful, so maybe some folks didn't listen to the lyrics as carefully as they could have. If they had, they would have heard the exact same words he's using today."

[CWebster]

143. Nice sentiments

and maybe appropriate for the time he said them. Considering the escalation of violence since then, the cost, the loss of life, the destruction, the continuing resistance, well, I would hope that Dean would take those PRESENT factors into consideration -- instead of saying, in essence, I opposed the cause, but now that we are there, I support it.

Because that is EXACTLY what he is saying and if you want to go round and round with this, I will. Because it matters that much.

You don't know the utter disgust I feel when I read these posts about how only us, the great white father can fix it for the ignorant brown people. It smacks of that morally righteous back slapping to say we care and that is why we stay, while we destroy their country. What would they do without us?

[Carolab]

149. He IS considering these factors.

"Considering the escalation of violence since then, the cost, the loss of life, the destruction, the continuing resistance, well, I would hope that Dean would take those PRESENT factors into consideration -- instead of saying, in essence, I opposed the cause, but now that we are there, I support it."

And his position is that if we cut and run NOW, now that the Bush administration f'd up and got us in there, and the insurgency is running full-tilt, it will provoke a FURTHER risk to the U.S. and to Iraq and the rest of the M.E.

It took me a while to understand this, too. But now I do.

Once again from the linked article:

"I now find Howard Dean to be a remarkably consistent person. For example, his position on the war has been rock-solid in terms of its consistency. He had always been an outspoken critic of the war, and he never would have voted to authorize the war and he certainly never would have invaded Iraq. But he has always taken the position that we must finish the incompetent job that Bush so immorally started. He has never taken the position that we need to pull out our troops immediately, because doing so would cause utter chaos and complete the abdication of personal responsibility that so elegantly symbolizes the Republicans. Howard Dean cares about the Iraqi people, and he cares about the standing of the United States in the international community."

[CWebster]

151. You just gobble up everything they spoon feed you.

And again,

First rule of war, divide and conquer--that keeps the focus off the Occupier. Next disband the official army, and then through starvation, lack of employment opportunity and bribes, try to build a proxy force to do the Occupier's dirty work in establishing a police state to maintain control through an iron fist. Then, refer to organized opposition to the Occupier's proxy force as "terrorists" and "insurgents" when they well may be ordinary Iraqis fighting against the Occupier and the Occupier's proxy forces who we have been instructed represent Iraq's "security".

[Carolab]

153. What?

I am as anti-war as they come and I really wish we could just leave.

I do not buy any "brainwashing" or "spoonfeeding"; I just recognize plain old-fashioned LOGIC in the face of FACTS when I see it.

[CWebster]

154. I am still waiting for your response. nt

[Carolab]

156. What's the question? n/t

[madfloridian]

20. Oh, yes, Kevin, you know what it "has to do with."

Your statement: "One last thought: You and some others always say again and again that Dean has been consistent in his position on staying in Iraq for a long time now, and this is true. But I don't know what that has to do with anything. I think Dean is wrong on this, but you seem to state that it's OK because he's been consistently wrong since the invasion. I don't get it."

He may have been "consistently wrong" in "your" eyes. I asked you one day if your group were contributing to the party, and you evaded that by saying you were holding his feet to the fire.

I still have the post that got many of us so upset with you and your group. You keep acting like you don't have a clue what you did.
I don't want to post it. It was a painful post.

I don't think Dean has been "consistently wrong." I happen to have other opinions on the let's just get out now options.

This has been a concerted effort by the Greens, PDA, Kucinich, and now Nader, and Norm Solomon and the Socialist group. Nader tonight is bashing him and all Democrats. I forgot Kevin Zeese who is ready now for a new party.

I think if you guys want a 3rd party, form one now. Get it over with. There are many of us with other ideas, who want to give the Democratic Party a chance.

[Eloriel]

24. I need that link, mf, please

Post it here or PM me. I NEED that link (Kevin's original "poll"). I could probably search but if you have it handy would save me some time. Thanks.

[madfloridian]

35. I will put it in your inbox, but I won't post it.

.

[Q]

72. I didn't expect to see something like this from YOU:

"I think if you guys want a 3rd party, form one now. Get it over with. There are many of us with other ideas, who want to give the Democratic Party a chance."

What the hell is going on here? What is this 'Dean's way or the hiway' rhetoric? I'm very disappointed in how too many Democrats are defending the 'party line'...even when it's morally and ethically wrong. You're getting dangerously close to intimating that those who object to Dean's/DLC's position on Iraq are some sort of 'fringe element' that should find another party.

The facts show that BUSH LIED THIS NATION into an aggressive, illegal war on Iraq and that MANY Democrats voted for it knowing that he lied. Now they're trying to cover their collective political asses by saying we 'can't leave Iraq' under any circumstances. And like their counterparts on the Right...they're not even interested in debating a plan for withdrawal.

Thousands of human beings are needlessly dying while Republicans and Democrats are playing politics and trying to look the toughest on 'national security'. Hidden behind this political opportunism is the fact that Iraq has nothing to do with the 'war on terrorism' or 9-11...the reason they supposedly attacked in the first place.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is illegal and immoral. That Dean or Kerry or any other Democrat has been 'consistent' in their support for this 'war' won't change that fact.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Q]

78. I don't have a 'dog in this hunt'...

...nor do I have a 'favorite' candidate that I'm trying to promote. But I HAVE defended Dean from the beginning...ever since the DLC made him a target and helped the RWing spread the 'scream' rhetoric.

But this isn't even ABOUT Dean. It's about the Democratic party and the Leadership trying to avoid responsibility for their enabling of Bush and HIS illegal, aggressive war AND the fact that Iraq NEVER had anything to do with the phony 'war on terrorism'.

Whether Dean has been 'consistently' FOR THE IRAQ WAR is besides the point. The fact is that he was speaking out against the war when most of the other candidates were running away from it. He was PERCEIVED as being an 'anti-war' candidate because of his campaign rhetoric. That he NOW seems to support it in no uncertain terms and has boldly stated that we can't leave Iraq has surprised many people who listened to him rant against it during the campaign.

I don't have an 'agenda' beyond wanting 'our' party to do the right thing. We're 'still at it' because the Democratic party has JOINED with Bush in LYING to the American people about the Iraq invasion and occupation and WHY we're still there.

[Carolab]

126. Again, he did NOT change position.

YOU say: "The fact is that he was speaking out against the war when most of the other candidates were running away from it. He was PERCEIVED as being an 'anti-war' candidate because of his campaign rhetoric. That he NOW seems to support it in no uncertain terms and has boldly stated that we can't leave Iraq has surprised many people who listened to him rant against it during the campaign."

GET THIS STRAIGHT:

He ALWAYS said he was AGAINST GOING TO IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE, but SINCE WE DID, we couldn't just cut and run....it was the SAME MESSAGE THROUGHOUT HIS CAMPAIGN AND IT IS THE SAME MESSAGE NOW!!!!!!!


YOU NEVER LISTENED TO HIM AND YOU'RE NOT LISTENING NOW.

[Eloriel]

36. Kevin, you are STILL misrepresenting Dean's position

I can only assume by this time, since you've had ample opportunity to learn differently, that it's quite purposeful.

One last thought: You and some others always say again and again that Dean has been consistent in his position on staying in Iraq for a long time now, and this is true. But I don't know what that has to do with anything. I think Dean is wrong on this, but you seem to state that it's OK because he's been consistently wrong since the invasion. I don't get it.

Dean is wrong about WHAT? He is in favor of getting troops out of Iraq but doing it responsibly, and that's clear from his statements from the the start. How is that different from what you are calling for?

CLUE: it isn't.

You are making it sound like Dean is in favor either of staying forever OR of withdrawing irresponsibly, and neither is true. In fact, I consider your misrepresentations of Dean's position irresponsible, unfair, incredibly damaging to Dean and the Democratic Party and I do believe one of these days we'll find out exactly what is going on behind the scenes.

In the meantime, here's a bit more info for you. I'm tired of repeating myself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3596067&mesg_id=3599881

[Radical Activist]

60. Dean said during the primary

that we would have to be in Iraq for several more years. He is again saying we have to stay in Iraq and how he supports the President's plan for Iraq. You can call it responsible or irresponsible all you want, but staying in Iraq still means staying in Iraq. That is what Kevin said, and if you don't understand that to be Dean's position maybe you should review what Dean has said.

[Radical Activist]

59. Yes, its funny how many Deaniacs suddenly support the war in Iraq,

now that Dean has "consistently" supported the occupation.

Its true that Dean has not flip-flopped on his specific stance on the issue. He has flip-flopped on his general attitude that Democrats should strongly stand up to and challenge Bush on the Iraq war issue. What happened to that Howard Dean? I took that as the meaning of what Kucinich wrote when he asked what about Dean has changed.

[mzmolly]

94. Who supports the war?

Dean said Bush has made a mess in Iraq thus pulling out now would be dangerous.

Dean is taking it to Bush on issues daily. See here:

http://www.democrats.org/news/index.html

[Willinois]

97. Dean does

Support for the occupation and giving support to Bush's plan, as Dean has done on more than one occasion over the last several months, is support for the war. Its hard to spin that one. Dean may be taking on Bush on OTHER issues, but that doesn't change what he has said recently about Iraq.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[MuseRider]

103. I also love

pseudo-progressive language and there is a hell of a lot of it on this thread and the other threads on this issue.

UN peacekeepers are NOT the same as an occupying military force.

Sure, Kucinich supports the war. Where in the hell did that come from? :eyes:

How about we all just ignore Dean and anything he says and make him totally irrelevant? Would that make you happy or would you all be back tag teaming the rest of us about not paying attention? Is it total agreement you want? Not going to happen so stop looking for it. It is a messy thing this democracy deal and not for the faint of heart.

Kucinich supports the war, thanks for the laugh of the day.

[mzmolly]

110. The UN "peacekeepers" will be seen as "occupiers"

like it or not.

AND NO ONE has addressed the fact that the UN SAID THEY AREN'T INTERESTED IN "PEACE KEEPING."

[MuseRider]

117. I said below

in another post that it is my feeling based on reading(sorry, no documentation) that the UN would have been ready to support anyone other than Bush**. Bush** made the position for them and they refused to be put in it.

There is a HUGE difference in a group of people there to keep the law and help the people from what they have there now. They would not be of the one country who blew them up and tried to take advantage of everything to their own benefit. They would be funded by the people who did the wrong in the first place and give the people of the country a chance to do the work themselves. I am quite certain they would be intellegent enough in Iraq to understand that.

[mzmolly]

120. The UN Is seen as an extention of the US by most in Iraq after the

sanctions. But I would have supported their help regardless. I just don't agree that the "insurgents" and infighting would magically dissapear if they did want to assist.

[MuseRider]

124. No one said they would

disappear but the situation would have a fighting chance of getting better quicker. As long as we are there nothing will ever be better for the people. If the insurgency gets better because we kill all of the insurgents(like that will ever happen) the people will still suffer as we take more and more from them. If that does not happen they have more of what is happening now. God I feel so badly for them.

At this point I would think that most of them would give up a lot of UN animosity just to get us the hell out and try something, anything else.

[mzmolly]

139. I wish two things. 1. That the UN were interested in helping out, and 2.

that the Iraqi's would give up animosity just to get us out. There is no data to support either scenario however.

[Willinois]

Not true about Kucinich and some other Dems.

Not all Dems support Bush's plan for the occupation as Dean has done. Saying we can't get out and should support Bush's occupation plan is not the same as a plan for withdrawal.

For you to pretend that Dean's position is the same as Dems who are truly calling for withdrawal from Iraq is misleading. Maybe you've swallowed so much spin from Dean that you don't know the difference between a pro-war and anti-war position anymore.

Were the people who advocated staying in Vietnam because we couldn't get out truly anti-war? That would be a ridiculous claim, but that's exactly the argument you're making. Dean is the only pseudo-progressive in this discussion.

[mzmolly]

109. Bologna. A UN OCCUPATION is still an OCCUPATION.

Most Iraqis would view the UN as an extention of the US - changing the color of the uniforms won't mean "diddly."

So by your own standard, if you support the UN occupation YOU support the war.

And for the record, I'm not pretending Dean's position is the same, I think Dean is considering all the facts and pseudo progressives are swallowing the what sounds good pill.

People who supported Dean, Kerry and others knew they said once were in Iraq we have to stay until it's safe to leave. One of the main arguments for NOT going in was because we would create more instability if we went in. And, that is EXACTLY what we have done.

[Willinois]

114. There is no such thing as staying until it is stable.

As long as US troops occupy Iraq there will be instability because the US is the target of insurgent troops trying to free their nation of foreign occupiers. Dean's logic on this issue is seriously flawed. There will be no stability until the source and motivation for instability, US troops, are removed.

I agree with the other poster that UN peace keeping troops are not the same as US troops. Building permanent military bases for US troops is not that same as pulling out and paying reparations.

[mzmolly]

118. Like I said, dream all you like the UN won't help and has said as much.

We can talk till were blue in the face arguing how Iraqi's would see a UN OCCUPATION. I happen to have read much about this, and the info I've seen indicates that they would consider the UN puppets of the US. The UN applied sanctions, remember?

But, the main point is the UN said they don't want IN. I repeat THE UN DOESN'T WANT to go into Iraq.

[Radical Activist]

165. So what?

There are lots of ways to get out of Iraq, but supporting Bush's plan, which Dean has said he does several times over the past few months, is not one of them.

UN involvement is only a key difference between what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. It does matter and the US letting go of control would lend credibility to any reconstruction effort.

[mzmolly]

170. Dean supports "democracy" in Iraq.

Period. As many have pointed out, Dean supports Bush's *stated* position.

I think the chattle regarding the "us letting go of control" sounds peachy, it just doesn't seem to take into consideration the complications that tomorrow.

[CWebster]

105. So, you support the Occupation?

Is that what you Dean loyalsts are defending? The Occupation?

[mzmolly]

106. "The occupation" uh-huh and I support killing babies too.

What I support is a careful exit strategy.

[CWebster]

135. What would that be, Molly?

Like Viet Nam? Maybe we should wait five years and see if it gets any better. How many more people will have to die, before we decide what is better for us--cause it sure as hell isn't getting better for the Iraqis.

[mzmolly]

141. I love the comparisons to Vietnam here.

Once again, the UN has said that they don't want to assist us.

I personally think were screwed until * leaves office. I wish it weren't so, but we need the help of the Mid-East community in order to stabilize that area and, unfortunately it ain't happenin anytime soon.

We are there to prevent all out civil war in Iraq. And if that happens the entire mideast could become unglued. Leaving would be worse then the mess we have today. The reason Bush 1 left Saddam in power was because he forsaw this mess. So did most of those who opposed the war.

I'm off to work, I'll reply to any posts when I get time. :hi:

[Radical Activist]

166. And what Dean wants is Bush's exit strategy,

which isn't a real exit at all. I'm not willing to support any leader unconditionally when they start supporting Bush's idiotic policies in Iraq. It is inexcusable. I thought we were supposed to be the opposition party with Dean as Chair.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

175. If that isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I'll keep repeating the statement until you understand the difference between a real peace platform and supporting Bush's occupation. I'm not willing to make excuses for Dean voicing support for Bush's occupation plan. You can reword it and spin it all you want, but that is still what Dean is doing.

[mzmolly]

179. Amusing as a mosquito.

bzzzzzzzz.

Your simplistic slogans would sound great on a protest sign, but that's about it.

There is a reason Kucinich wasn't taken seriously in the primaries, the reason ... he is as short sighted/simplistic/repetitive as many of his supporters.

[Radical Activist]

196. Resorting to name calling and taunts?

I guess you ran out of real arguments, as if that wasn't already obvious.

You can bad mouth Kucinich all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Dean has become just like all the other Bush-appeasers that Dean once criticized, at least on the Iraq war issue.

[mzmolly]

203. As I said ...

*splat*

[mzmolly]

92. Kevin, PDA has a responsibility to act "responsibly."

Your organization is young, but could take a lesson from other progressive organizations that behave professionally.

http://www.21stcenturydems.org/

http://www.wellstone.org/

"First do no harm" is a saying for medical professionals, but it would be good to remember when it comes to being productive progressives as well.

It's not what you say but how you say it, right?

Why progressive groups would spend time going after other progressives and Democrats "highliting our differences" rather than going after Bush (the most disasterous president in American history) is BEYOND me.

This pResident is screwing America more with each day, Blair is being scrutinized for his role in the war in light of NEW evidence it was a sham, and PDA is pissing about Dean?

Take it to BUSH, not other Democrats, then were collectively getting somewhere.

I really hope your organization will spend time focusing on Bush going forward, and not giving Nader fodder for his cannon in 2008.

Remember the word "democrat" in Progressive Democrats for America." And as I said above "first do no harm."

Themz my 2 cents if your interested. I know PDA meant no harm, they wanted to be heard, but if PDA could tread carefully in the future, they'll have more respect.

[NYCGirl]

17. Great letter, Eloriel. Recommended. NT

[Kenneth ken]

21. my $.02

what Kucinich said in his open letter to Dean:
"Now that we're there , we're there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now."

The ellipsis filled in by Mzmolly:
"Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out," he told an audience of nearly 1,000 at the Minneapolis Convention Center. "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."

Snipped from Eloriel's post above:
We cannot do this by ourselves, we cannot have an American occupation and reconstruction.


It is true Dean has long been saying since we're there, we need to stay until it is fixed; but until the speech referred to by Kucinich, I do not recall anything where Dean said he hoped Bush policy would be successful. Why is Dean now saying he hopes for the administration to succeed when this is still -for all intents and purposes - an American occupation?

Now that polls (for whatever good they are) show Americans turning against the invasion/occupation it seems like bad timing for Dean to be "hop(ing) the president is incredibly successful" in Iraq. From that perspective, I very much agree with Kucinich that it is a good time for Dems to become very vocal about demanding withdrawal plans from the administration.

[Eloriel]

29. You want him to say he wants our policy in Iraq to be UNSUCCESSFUL?

That means even more deaths and injuries for our troops and an even longer timeline for getting out of there; that means civil war; that means the Kurds and Turkey mix it up and oh my; that means more money spent; on and on.

You MUST be crazy to think he could get away with saying anyting of the sort or WOULD say anything of the sort. At a certain level even *I* hope parts of our misadventure over there are successful enough that we can minimize further deaths, leave Iraq in one piece with a viable government that resembles democracy or can get there, the intra-Iraqi killing stops, the water and electricity get turned on for everyone, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, even *I* hope parts of Bush's policy in Iraq are successful. I can't imagine anyone thinking differently. What ARE you saying?

[Kenneth ken]

31. I want him to say it has ALREADY failed

it is my opinion that as long as the US remains, the resistance will continue, costing lives on both sides, misery on both sides, and if we stay long enough will bankrupt the US.

The US should pull out as soon as possible, pledge money to fund the rebuilding, and pretty much leave it to Iraqis to figure out how to put the political aspect of their country back together.

My opinion is that "success" as defined by the Bush administration will onlyencourage them to invade another oil-rich nation, and I would like to avoid that.

Right now, pulling out isn't even being discussed except in extremely vague terms. It can't happen until the discussion is allowed and plans put together.

[Eloriel]

41. Well, in that case, h's way ahead of you

He has already called it a failure -- often and vigorously and on a number of different counts.

The US should pull out as soon as possible, pledge money to fund the rebuilding, and pretty much leave it to Iraqis to figure out how to put the political aspect of their country back together.

THIS is where he disagrees with you -- and Kucinich and PDA disagree with you as well. Altho Kucinich used to call for just leaving when he was a candidate, he now apparently has changed his mind and good for him.

What Dean has said all along is chronicled in the link I posted, but here it is again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=41214

I strenuously disagree with you as well. If you think Iraq is a mess now, if we left it to Iraqis at this point, it would cease to exist as a nation and either devolve into something approaching what Afghanistan is now or break up into 3 probably totally unsustainable nation states. It's painful to admit, but prior to the war as I read all about the various factions and tribal groups, etc., in Iraq, it occurred to me that there ARE situations where a dictatorship isn't a bad solution to the political realities. In any case, I personally don't believe that the U.S. ought to be responsible for the total and utter destruction of Iraq as a viable nation, and all that would mean for the remaining survivors of this horrible war. Fortuntely, Kucinich doesn't either any more (as he once did) nor does PDA.

[Kenneth ken]

49. okay Dean called it a failure

and said the US needed help from the UN; now he is saying he hopes Bush's occupation is successful, even though Bush has pulled back from asking for UN assistance. Sounds like a change of Dean's position to me, and one that weakens the Dems.

I tend to agree with Kucinich that Dems need to be pressing harder for US withdrawal, rather than hoping for the Bush administration to succeed on Bush's terms.

I'll be happy to step away from my "...leave it to the Iraqi's..." comment - I personally don't have any good idea of how to get out, and hadn't read the PDA petition. Their point 2 seems reasonable to me, but honestly I'm open to any idea that gets the US out, and helps to stabilize Iraq.

The only aspect of my comment I truly do support is that Iraq should have a lot of voice in how the pullout and rebuilding happens, it is their country after all.

My main argument is that Iraq will never be stable as long as the US continues to occupy it. So from that position, I am opposed to Democratic cheerleading of any sort in hoping for the Bush administration to succeed in its imperial quest.

edit: there/their typo. & hels/helps

[Eloriel]

52. he didnt' say "succeed on Bush's terms" --

you guys just slay me. You're so damned transparent, parsing words instead of allowing yourself to actually "get it" about what the other person is saying. But go ahead and play your silly games.

but honestly I'm open to any idea that gets the US out, and helps to stabilize Iraq.

I can promise you that is exactly what Dean wants as well. (Why is it so hard for people to see or acknowledge that??)

My main argument is that Iraq will never be stable as long as the US continues to occupy it. So from that position, I am opposed to Democratic cheerleading of any sort in hoping for the Bush administration to succeed in its imperial quest.

Well, if you wouldn't insist on misunderstanding Dean's meaning and intent, you wouldn't have any worries.

You guys are wearing me out.

:grr:

[Kenneth ken]

61. I'm not trying to parse words

or misinterpret anything Dean said.

I'm trying to shift the debate away from whether Kucinich is attacking Dean or not,

and toward

the bulk of what Kucinich said:

"President Bush led the country into war based on false information, falsified threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war and the continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want to hunt Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim world. His war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the world for America after our losses of September 11. He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he diverted our attention and abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the September 11 attack; instead, we are mired in occupation. The President's war and occupation in Iraq has already cost $125 billion, nearly 1,600 American lives, more than 11,000 American casualties and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis. The occupation has been more costly in this regard than the war.

There is no end in sight for the occupation of Iraq. The President says we will stay until we're finished. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service concluded that the United States is probably building permanent military bases in Iraq. The President refuses to consider an exit strategy. The Republican Congress gives the President whatever he asks for.

We can draw no clearer distinction with the President than over this war. He cannot right a wrong (unjustified war) by perpetuating a military occupation. Military victory there is not possible. General Tommy Franks concedes that. The war will end when we say it's over. The Democratic leadership should be pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.

That's what most Democrats want, too. "

Dean, as party chairman is an official voice of the Democratic party, and I believe he should use that voice to pressure the Bush administration to start formulating an exit strategy, as well as offer opinions on Democratic party stated withdrawal proposals.

This is the dialogue we as a nation need - I have no interest in the in-fighting of whether Kucinich is attacking or mischaracterizing Dean. You're the one focusing on 1 paragraph of a 10 paragraph letter.

[Eloriel]

75. Then may I suggest you start your own damn thread?

I'm not trying to parse words or misinterpret anything Dean said.

I'm trying to shift the debate away from whether Kucinich is attacking Dean or not, and toward the bulk of what Kucinich said:

AFAIC, pretty much the entire piece from Kucinich was one long misrepresentation of Dean, since he "used" and misrepresented Dean as a springboard to make his own remarks. I have no interest in discussing the MERIT of DK's argument -- in my mind, it has no merit when he has to resort to sordid tricks like that.

And I'm going to start repeating until you folks hear it: DK NEEDS TO TAKE HIS ARGUMENT TO THE PEOPLE IN CONGRESS, esp. Reid and Pelosi, and stop distracting Dean. Dean is busy building party infrastructure and trying to raise money for local Dem Parties.

[CWebster]

69. Interesting that if it is Kucinich:

"he now apparently has changed his mind and good for him."

But Dean's positions are holy decrees?

[Eloriel]

74. You sure can misinterpret and twist things.

During the primaries, DK was calling for unilateral pullout, NOW. No measured withdrawals, no timetables, just pull our troops out and devil mind the details.

NOW he has a different story, and good for him. I always thought his other idea was irresponsible in the extreme.

Dean's positions aren't holy decrees and no one has suggested, implied, or indicated they believe that. It's just that they have been CONSISTENT all along, despite attempts by word twisters here who like to seize on a single pronouncement and parse it to death (or twist it, or apply other denotations to a given word or phrase, trying to make Dean look foolish.

In this case, Kucinich and his team of snipers are seizing on the word "success" and playing word games with that, or trying to. As just one example.

[CWebster]

79. No he wasn't

As I recall his refrain was "UN in, US out".

I don't care if they have been consistant, that isn't the point. Kerry attempted to maintain his "consistancy" and it made him seem weak, unprincipled, irrelevant. In fact, his inability to come to terms with the IWR catastrophe eroded his chances, and his desperation to capitalize on it by portraying himself as some macho military man, only underscored how out of touch he was.

Dean is now in the position of traveling that deceptive path--of trying to bridge the breach, and as a consequence maintaining a meaningless position, that at one time may have been viable--and stemming from honorable motivations. Now it serves the Bush administration's intent to maintain an Occupation, and that does not address the reality that the Occupation is the problem and not the fix.

[Eloriel]

88. Yes, dear, consistency IS the point of this thread -- read the OP again

The whole point of this thread is debunking the CLAIM made by Kucinich and PDA that Dean has somehow changed his position in Iraq. That's a lie, or at best a misunderstanding/mischaracterization (to be far more charitable about it than warranted, IMO).

So fine if you don't care -- but why are you in this thread, then? I care about accuracy on the subject of Dean's position, which is why I started it.

I don't care if they have been consistant, that isn't the point. Kerry attempted to maintain his "consistancy" and it made him seem weak, unprincipled, irrelevant.

Well, at last you've got something right.

In fact, his inability to come to terms with the IWR catastrophe eroded his chances, and his desperation to capitalize on it by portraying himself as some macho military man, only underscored how out of touch he was.

Yes, for my money as well. Except I'd exchange "self-serving and unprincipled" for "out of touch."

Dean is now in the position of traveling that deceptive path--of trying to bridge the breach, and as a consequence maintaining a meaningless position...

No he's not. And there's NOTHING but other people's lies and misrepresentations about him and his position that point to that.

... that at one time may have been viable--and stemming from honorable motivations. Now it serves the Bush administration's intent to maintain an Occupation, and that does not address the reality that the Occupation is the problem and not the fix.

No, you're wrong there too. Dean's position really isn't different from Kucinich's current position, or Kerry's old position (who knows what his current one is?), or PDA's position. Any and all attempts to MAKE them different in any substantive way are simply misguided -- at best.

If some people could get beyond their knee-jerk anti-Dean bias long enough to be OBJECTIVE about him, they'd easily and clearly see that.

[CWebster]

140. Did you just call me, "dear"? lol

Has the situation in Iraq escalated? Has Dean's views shifted appropriately or have they shifted to supporting Bush's success as the fix?

Wonder what it will take for him to recognize it for what it is?

You know very well that I don't have anti-Dean bias, and maybe you would see that if you could get the adoring glaze out of your eye.

What is that you care about more, defending Dean to the death or the needless death of our kids and thousands of Iraqis?

[mzmolly]

104. UN in US out was Kooch's position. And the UN has said they don't want IN

that small tid bit keeps being overlooked? :shrug:

Dean wanted the UN to support us before hand if and only IF there was just cause.

[CWebster]

108. Kucinich also made the argument BEFORE

the situation in Iraq spiralled to the point it is now.

[MuseRider]

112. Also I would point out

what the UN says now under this administration is most likely not the same as it would say under a reasonable administration. They most likely would have been very supportive no matter who got in if they were not Bush**. This, of course, is all in my mind but seems to hold true with what I have read. Sorry, no documentation.

[mzmolly]

116. The UN did say they won't assist in a war they did not support.

Kerry would have had a fighting chance with them however.

[MuseRider]

119. Anyone other than Bush**

would have a fighting chance hence the get the UN in and the US out. Would they all not feel like supporting the ONE guy still in the race who did not vote for the war? Is that what you are implying there? I don't understand.

[mzmolly]

121. I agree that anyone but * would have had a fighting chance, but

the irony is that many "progressives" who were too pure to support Kerry are now crying "UN IN US OUT" when that is not possible because Bush is in office.

[MuseRider]

125. Huh.

I was of the opinion that most progressives worked their asses off for Kerry. All the progressives I know did. Every Greed I know worked their asses off for Kerry. I can't think of any of them who did not.

[mzmolly]

138. Glad you can't think of any, I can think of several.

Several who post here in fact.

[MuseRider]

142. Several?

WOW that is a lot of people to base an entire angry scenario on.

Not to sound like a real jerk here but what the hell is going on? Relax, THIS is democracy. Holy gods, so Kucinich does not like what Dean said. It is what it is. So you think he misrepresented Dean and you get all bent out of shape and then you go and tell us all that Kucinich is insignificant and we who support him are just clueless (or stupid according to another poster). What is it? Influential and screwing with Dean or insignificant and nobody cares anyway except it is a good reason to get all outraged? And one of you is getting a lawyer over this because she/he feels all picked on?

I wish I had ignored this thread, I knew once I jumped in I would stay but this is all just silly bullshit. I disagree with Dean, I make my opinion known. So the fuck what? The only thing that matters is if we get it to the people who can do something about this. Why the hell can we not talk about this reasonably? If K misrepresented Dean then I am certain anyone with half a mind and an interest(the rest will never even see it) will look into it and decide for themselves there is absolutely no reason to start up all the anger and nastiness between us.

I have learned not to get all upset over this stuff but I have not learned not to have fun with it. I need to get a life.

[mzmolly]

152. Sorry, did I appear unrelaxed?

Perhaps it's the coffee? ;)

[MuseRider]

161. Nah

it is the nature of the game. We can still be :pals: right? Hope so. I wasn't speaking to you specifically. I could stand taking my own advice sometimes. :)

[mzmolly]

162. Oh hell, I don't take anything here personally.

:pals: is right. :hi:

[MuseRider]

163. Glad to hear that.

I am going to be gone all evening so I will be interested to see what happens here over the next bunch of hours. Have fun(I say that with my tongue firmly implanted in my cheek). :hi:

[mzmolly]

115. So did Dean. Kucinich and others said if we go in to Iraq we'll create

enormous instability in the region and we won't be able to leave right away. Then once we were their Kooch said "UN in US out" overlooking the FACT that the UN has said THEY DON'T WANT IN.

I repeat the UN has said THEY WON'T GO INTO IRAQ. That is one of the main reasons getting Kerry in office was so crucial, Bush burned bridges with the UN and Kerry might have had a chance for international assistance. But of course true progressives didn't vote for Kerry because he wasn't pure enough either.

:eyes:

[Radical Activist]

167. The UN is not a monolithic groups that cannot be persuaded.

You keep repeating that they don't want in but that doesn't mean anything. Minds and situations do change. What they said is that they don't want in under the terms Bush demands.

[mzmolly]

183. Nope, that's not what they said.

What was said was they never supported the mission, thus they weren't interested in risking their lives to save our ass.

[Radical Activist]

197. "they" who?

Who in the UN said this and when? It still isn't a monolithic group that doesn't change its mind. You have no point here.

[mzmolly]

202. Koffi Annan said it that's who. And, anyone following this issue should

be WELL aware. But, I'm not in the least bit surprised Kucinich and others haven't stopped squaking long enough to actually listen.

[eridani]

48. What parts of Bush policy should be successful?

The only ones I can think of are not really his policies, because he lies about them. He does not want democracy in Iraq, because a democratic Iraq (and it makes no difference whether fundie or secular) would not tolerate a permanent US military presence or selling off its assets to Bush campaign donors for pennies on the dollar. Dems should be calling Bush on his lies instead of reinforcing them.

Yes, I'd like to see Dean and other Dems say that imperial conquest deserves to fail. What are we for if we can't redefine success to mean ourselves out of there, even if we disagree about how long that might take?

What is your evidence for the assumption that our presence there is preventing deaths? As for civil war, having paid the Kurdish Peshmerga to help destroy the Sunni city of Fallujah does not strike me as a major contribution to preventing it.

[H2O Man]

67. Key point!

There is a significant difference between Bush/Cheney's stated objectives, and his actual objective. It is, as the old saying goes, the exact difference between sugar and shit. We need to focus on the shit, not the sugar. We need to expose the horrible truth about the war in Iraq.

[eridani]

25. What about the New Hampshire flyer?

Regardless of his actual statements, he was perfectly happy to accept support on the basis of being antiwar.

http://radical-middle.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/9/184412/310

"Dean ran television ads in New Hampshire last month claiming that his opponents had all supported the war and implying that he had opposed the increased spending. After I protested, he publicly recanted at an AFL-CIO meeting in New Hampshire and then stopped running the ads.

"Dean's new flyer says in bold at the top: 'Only Dean Opposed the War from the Start.' The flyer begins with the line 'Newsweek calls it "Bush's $87 Billion Mess."' The flyer claims that Dean has a plan for Iraq that differs substantially from President Bush's policies.

And forget about the 'major' candidate nonsense. Recall that the same media that designated Kucinich as 'minor' played the fake 'scream' about 600 times.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

28. My question and only one question

Did the flyer say, "paid for by dean for america" or something to that effect? Did it come from the actual organization?

[madfloridian]

33. No, it was not paid for by the campaign.

It was a group which did it on their own. Part of the hazards of a campaign with loose control at the top, and a lot of trust in the people. Very rare.

[Eloriel]

37. Thanks. One little piece of info I missed

among all the mudslinging and lying about Dean that went on. I appreciate the clarification. If you run across a link for that at some point, shoot it to me if you remember.

[madfloridian]

38. Just in my head.

Might be in blog archives if you tell me the month.

[Eloriel]

32. It's called poisoning the well

a fallacy of logic wherein you try to eliminate rebuttal sources:

And forget about the 'major' candidate nonsense. Recall that the same media that designated Kucinich as 'minor' played the fake 'scream' about 600 times.

I don't quite understand your 2nd sentence, the point you're trying to make, but it didn't take the media to declare Kucinich a minor player -- his poll numbers just were never there. Never. Never above even 5% IIRC. You don't want to admit that, perhaps, but it's true.

You don't want to accept Dean's explanation for his remark during the debate, which also applies to this flyer tho it's still unclear the flier was his campaign's doing (that he meant he was the only mainstream candidate against the war), but it's true nonetheless. It's also true that Dean often speaks in a sort of shorthand in which he truncates his thought or argument, as he did with that remark, because he's been through it verbally so many times before. It's probably something he shouldn't do, but he does. It's gotten him in trouble, but I think for people to completely refuse to accept his explanations and clarifications when there is amply support for them elsewhere, either in his own words or in the FACTS, is ridiculous.

[eridani]

40. So, given that the 'mainstream' press screwed Dean royally--

--why accept its definition of who is and who is not a 'major' candidate?

[Eloriel]

42. That's what I said: it DIDN'T take the media to know DK was NOT

a major candidate (and was never going to be one). Sorry, but that's just the truth. He NEVER had any poll numbers. You can fantasize that with or without the media DK would have, could have, should have made it to viable candidate status, but it wasn't going to happen. And it didn't take the media to make that point, or "define" him, to use your terminology.

[eridani]

44. That's a circular argument

Dean didn't have much in the way of poll numbers until the media got into publicizing the horse-race aspects of the Internet campaign as a cool cutting edge thing. The improvement in polling numbers was after that. (That, of course, takes nothing away from the campaign's very effective use of that free gift.)

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[eridani]

62. The crowds followed the media coverage--

which in turn got more crowds and more coverage in a positive feedback loop. Coverage came first. In my congressional district we managed two delegates, compared to two for Dean and three for Kerry. Dean filled Town Hall in Seattle with 1500 on the Monday before the caucus, and Kucinich did exactly the same two days later. The former was treated by our local press as a huge show of support, and the latter as a cult gathering. Same number of people either way. Kucinich was second to Dean in the Move-On poll. And ten million isn't nothing either.

[Eloriel]

76. I'm sorry, you're forgetting the part that came BEFORE that

the part where the MeetUps started blossoming, with 400 people in NYC alone (I think that was about Jan 2003) -- well before there WAS any media coverage. And it grew nearly exponentially from there, thanks primarily (but not entirely) to the internet.

There DID come a point where media coverage started in earnest and that helped increase exposure and crowds, but I can assure you Howard Dean was a phenomenon well before the media knew it. That's why he WAS ALREADY the frontrunner when the media STARTED covering him.

[CWebster]

71. Maybe if Kucinich wasn't marginalized by the Corporate press

He would've had more traction.
Many Dean supporters were progressives who saw Dean as an acceptible compromise, as a moderate with broad populist appeal- even though their politics aligned more closely with Kucinich, precisely because they recognized that our system wasn't going to let Kucinch get his foot in the door.

[madfloridian]

34. Eridani, I am always accused of bringing up the primaries.

No, I don't do that anymore.

That was a very unpleasant post, and I can bring up a lot like that.

Is Kucinich's goal to destroy Dean? It is seeming that way.

[eridani]

39. No. Kucinich wants Dean to take a stand against permanent occupation

What in bleeding hell is wrong with asking him to do that? In what way is arguing public policy in public equivalent to destruction? And yes, he has signed the Woolsey resolution requesting Congress to take such a stand, so it isn't just about bugging Dean.

BTW, I wasn't the one who brought up Edwards in this thread.

[Eloriel]

43. He's already done it, that's wha'ts wrong with that

It's misrepresenting Dean's position; it's creating division and discord within the Party; it's distracting from the business and work Dean IS doing and is SUPPOSED to do.

There is LOTS "wrong" with that.

Dean has never, ever, ever been in favor of "permanent occupation," but has from the very beginning called for internationalizing the forces in Iraq, especially with Arab-speaking troops, and making it anything BUT a U.S. occupation, getting our troops out, getting Iraq stabilized and on its own, all probably via the United Nations and NATO.

I'm so sick of people misrepresenting Dean's positions.

[eridani]

45. Well, then Dean is misrepresenting his own position--

--when he wishes Bush success. Success for Bush is permanent occupation. And just how does calling for internationalizing the forces in Iraq differ from UN in, US out?

Not knocking the idea of Arab speaking troops, but getting some from non-fundie countries is not going to be easy either.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[paineinthearse]

26. Don't forget Ralph Nader

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3598217&mesg_id=3598217

[eridani]

46. Nader has not the slightest interest in building an organization--

--that can seriously contest in the realm of electoral politics. His opinions don't count.

[Radical Activist]

50. This entire post is a straw-man argument that misses the point.

It's not about Dean changing his position. Yes, Kucinich pointed out during the primary that Dean's pro-occupation position was the same as being pro-war. Any peace advocates who supported Dean in the primary were suckers. We already know that.

But, the Kucinich letter is not about Dean changing positions. Its about Dean representing the progressive Democrats who put him in the position of Party Chair. Its about where we go from here. Is Dean going to follow the failed strategy of '02 and '04, or is he going to stand up to Bush on the Iraq war like he did in the primary?

Maybe you don't want to discuss those issues.

[Eloriel]

55. Oh, no, we haven't GOTTEN to that point because of the false premises

which is what my whole post addresses.

But, the Kucinich letter is not about Dean changing positions.

Right. It's mostly about Kucinich misrepresenting Dean and his positions.

[Radical Activist]

58. Where did Kucinich misrepresent Dean?

Kucinich quoted what Dean said. How are Dean's own words a misrepresentation?

Do you want someone who challenges the President on the Iraq war issue or not? That is the issue addressed in the letter. It sounds like you just want Dean even if Dean acts exactly like the spineless Democrats he attacked a year ago.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[CWebster]

111. It is too bad that you have to separate everything and

everyone into cheering sections like it was Dean vs Kucinich.

In that respect it is you who is playing the "you are either with us or against us" game.

[mzmolly]

122. I believe KUCINICH did so CWebster.

I'm merely responding. What's too bad is people yelling "UN in US out" are not taking into consideration that the UN does'nt want in, and they're hurting the party in the process.

[CWebster]

128. If you bothered to note

As I just did, Kucinich offered that scenario PRIOR to the UN fiasco.

So what is it MzMolly, you endorse Bush's "success" and are in denial about the conditions? What is that you propose?

When do Dean's opinions and official policy merge and how do we know which is which? And if official policy is set by centrists, which we all assume, then what the hell is going to change? How the hell is Dean going to build a party, pitching policies which run counter to what he previously opposed? The only way you can support Dean, under those circumstances, is to close your eyes, and keep them closed and demand no accountability from anyone.

[mzmolly]

137. I endorse Iraq's success as does Dean.

Bush claims to, and that's what Dean is talking about when he says he hopes * is successful. He's talking about success in his stated position.

What I propose is what I've said all along, I propose asking Bush for an exit strategy instead of demanding Dean to X Y or Z.

Dean is not running counter to anything he previously opposed which was demonstrated in the OP. CW you should know that, you supported his position in the primaries. You did not support Dennis Kucinich who chirped "un in us out" over and over again ignoring the facts then as he does today.

I support Dean for what he was hired to do. I don't demand that he take positions counter to his own, just to make a frikken point.

[eridani]

180. Bush "success" is absolutely antithetical to Iraqi "success"

They don't want to be a colony and a permanent US military outpost, and by wishing Bush success instead of calling him on his lies, Dean is contradicting himself. I call on Dean to separate his (and our) idea of success from that of Bush in the name of the Democratic party, which as a member and donor I have the right to do. Or do I no longer "have the power?"

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

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

[eridani]

187. Obviously you agree with it now, then. Glad to be of help. n/t

[eridani]

178. You are totally ignoring the reason WHY the UN doesn't want in

The reason is that Bush intends to have Iraq as a permanent conquered colony against the wishes of its residents, and the UN doesn't want to get tarred with that brush. Change the official US policy loudly and clearly, and the attitude of the rest of the world toward the project of stabilizing Iraq will change overnight.

[mzmolly]

181. Are you speaking for Koffi Annan now?

Cause that's not what he said. He said the UN would not take over when they did not support the mission. Tell my why anyone in the UN would want to risk the lives of their children to stablilize Iraq when they opposed the war from the get go?

[eridani]

186. The "mission" is the conquest of Iraq and it's permanent subjugation

--as an American military outpost. Why in bleeding hell would the UN or anyone else in the world support that? Change our policy (I mean really change it, not just cover shit with chocolate), and change in world opinion will follow.

[mzmolly]

188. Yeah ok.

:hi:

[eridani]

189. So, you are willing to work agaist it now? Good.

Glad to have you on board.

[mzmolly]

190. No I tire of listening to non-sense.

As I said ... :hi:

[Name removed]

204. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

51. So now you support the war in Iraq?

Just because Dean does?
Saying Dean should have no role or influence on policy is certainly a new argument from a Dean supporter. It seems like most want Dean to set the agenda and he keeps getting credit whenever Reid shows backbone. Maybe you're trying to have it both ways.

[Eloriel]

56. No, I have always supported

the same position Dean has always had, which is since we had the war, we have to try to restore some stability and self-governance to the country, preferrably via internationalizing the peacekeeping troops, etc., etc., etc.

Saying Dean should have no role or influence on policy is certainly a new argument from a Dean supporter.

Well, it might be if that's what I said -- it's not, and I think you know it. I was explaining the reality, not advocating for it.

It seems like most want Dean to set the agenda and he keeps getting credit whenever Reid shows backbone. Maybe you're trying to have it both ways.

Why don't you pull out some documentation for that ridiculous claim, that there's been ANY conflation of the efforts of Dean vis a vis Reid? I've seen nothing of the sort, so you get to educate me. Links, please.

And beyond that, we're through. Anyone who is either unable or unwilling to comprehend what I've actually said in my posts any better than you have doesn't warrant any additional time, effort opr energy from me.

[Radical Activist]

57. Here's the link

to Deaniacs taking credit for congressional leaders showing more spine. I'm serving the link with a side dish of crow. Enjoy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1747175#1747189

There have been at least dozens of threads about Dean's role as chairman and to what degree he does/should determine policy within the party. To pretend that has not been a common topic on DU is just silly.

Yes, Dean has always supported the occupation and said during the primary that we would be in Iraq for years. That's why I supported a real peace candidate instead of someone who sometimes tried to sound like a peace candidate. I'm also not willing to support any political leader unconditionally.

[eridani]

63. Kindly explain the difference between your phrase

internationalizing the peacekeeping troops and the Kucinich slogan UN in, US out.

[Eloriel]

77. You know

I could, and very easily.

But I'm not going to play these sucker games any longer. You're perfectly capable of knowing --

Nope, I'm not even going to go any further than this.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[Eloriel]

82. Sorry.

Like I said, I'm tired of playing the sucker-you-in games. It works like this: you are asked to explain more, and then when you do you've merely provided all sorts of more fodder for the antagonist to use to extend the debate into even further circles of meaningless debate.

The simple facts are these:

Dean's positions re Iraq have always been crystal clear. They haven't changed. They are being misrepresented by Kucinich and PDA and Tom Hayden as having changed AND these parties are calling Dean to do and be something that isn't his job or role, and criticizing him for not doing it INSTEAD of going after the people whose job it is.

Everything else in this discussion is extraneous. And I'm not responding to it further. People can discuss the topic, or whatever they want, but they needn't expect responses to me for extraneous subjects.

[MuseRider]

83. There are plenty

of answers here and a lot of people who kindly tried to tell you their position or opinion but you must be able to hear them. Your arguments go both ways, perhaps many more, and do nothing to further consensus or help with the issue.

Relax your guard, Dean can take care of himself and defend himself. We need to work together and if some of us do not like what Dean said well, so what? Fighting about it is not going to help but discussing our issues and LISTENING will. None of us are very good at listening when discussions begin as an attack I don't care who started it.

Now I am going to work for a while. I hope this thread goes away while I am gone and something new to help heal the differences arises.

[WilliamPitt]

130. .

.

[Guaranteed]

158. So, you don't want the Iraqis to have a democratic government? nt

[Radical Activist]

168. Bush doesn't want them to have a real democratic government.

So supporting the Dean approved Bush strategy in Iraq isn't going to get us there.

[Guaranteed]

198. Do you?

If you do, how do you propose that get done?

[rucky]

64. The intention of DK's open letter:

was simply to bring the option of GETTING THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ back on the table for debate. Seems that the Dems have forgotten to offer an exit strategy of their own & Dean - as our party's chair - was a prime target for a razzing. Not as much because of his stated views as his position of influence and ability to bring issues to the forefront.

that's my take on it...

[CWebster]

65. The issue was never whether his words are set in stone

It is the recognition that an illegal Invasion can not be waged with the assumption that the subsequent Occupation is to stablize a Country by continuing to inflame it.

That is the reality and to continue to promote the fantasy of US benevolent goodwill only prolongs the death and destruction and upholds the illusion that the occupation is based on some sort of legitimacy. So, how many deaths a day does it have to take, with the complete awareness that permanent bases and an embassy to rival one of Saddam's palaces are under construction, to realize that we aren't fixing anything? The fix is to liberate the Iraqis by leaving them to heal.

We owe them, but our military presence or our attempts to set up proxy "security" forces to create a police state is for our "interests" not theirs.

Dean's off-the-cuff remarks do have a way of instigating the debate that so often gets brushed aside, but he is still accountable and his supporters should not deify him to the point that they can't honestly give him the feedback he needs to represent the "democratic wing of the Democrat party". After all, that was the point of elevating Dean on the Inside--not so he would become what he was supposed to reform.

[Disturbed]

70. "everyone is jealous of Dean's support and following."

Does anyone believe that Tom Hayden is jealous of Howard Dean?

I feel that most of know that the Bush Junta will never allow the UN to step into Iraq or any of the other ME nations.

Personaly, I feel that for the most part Dean is a positive force for the Dem Party. Whatever he said or meant isn't so important to me. What the majority of Dems in Congress push and vote for is important.

A gradual pull out is a sane course and no permanent 14 or any bases. No one expects that the U.S. will ever leave Iraq, do they? Sure, the troop level may be pulled down before the U.S. congressional elelctions of '06 but the U.S. force will stay in Iraq indefinetly and most Dems in Congress will support that.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[H2O Man]

66. Great post!

Very well done. I think that this speaks for a significant group of democrats from across the board. The logic is firm, and the issues are in sharp focus: how can democrats best use their energy to get the party to come out strongly against the insane policies of the Bush administration! Despite the hollow reassurances of this administration, the violence is clearly continueing to take the lives of Americans and Iraqis each and every day. Howard Dean did not declare the war, and has not sent troops to Iraq; Howard dean cannot stand up in the House or in the Senate and confront the monster. The responsibility rests with those who can .... and I use the word "rests" for a reason: we need to wake it up, we need to shake things up, and we need to get into a higher gear now.

[Eloriel]

81. NO ONE has answered my questions. No one.

Why is (Dean's) position on Iraq and the occupation suddenly a matter of controversy? It's NEVER been unclear, never.

WHY, when Dean has NO policy input whatsoever and precious little influence on people who DO have policy input (Reid and Pelosi), are people trying to make Dean "at fault" here or somehow responsible for changing everything (like the whole bleepin' world, starting with Iraq), or someone to be criticized for anything at all in regards to Iraq?

snip

WHY is (Kucinich) going after Dean? And if he thinks Dean should be doing something different WHY is he going after Dean publicly instead of simply picking up the phone?

Why is PDA trafficking in misrepresetantations about Dean when Dean's position on Iraq has never been a secret, never been as "nuanced" as a certain other candidate's position, never been inconsistent, and has NOT recently changed in any way?

What's going on and why?

Kevin of PDA did try to respond to my question about PDA, but it wasn't that satisfactory, esp. since the misrepresentations are still there.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[CWebster]

91. It is sad that in your efforts to protect and defend Dean

you would neuter him into irrelevancy.

I happen to think what Dean says and does matters and I am not going to buy that it is not his job to participate. We are the Democratic party, we decide policy, our elected representitives listen to us and act in our interest. You might be satisfied with DLC interests continuing to decide policy for us all, I am not. And if we all accept that we have no say, than we will get none.

[NYCGirl]

95. Well, then if you say "our elected representatives listen to us and act in

our interest," perhaps it's YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES you should be complaining to, instead of someone whose job is to organize and fundraise, and not to make policy.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[NYCGirl]

123. And what exactly did I lie about, in your opinion? NT

[CWebster]

131. Easy enough for you to go back and read it, but here it is

in it's COMPLETE context.

'I happen to think what Dean says and does matters and I am not going to buy that it is not his job to participate. We are the Democratic party, we decide policy, our elected representitives listen to us and act in our interest. You might be satisfied with DLC interests continuing to decide policy for us all, I am not. And if we all accept that we have no say, than we will get none.'

and if Dean is expected to organize and fundraise, well, he better to have something people want to pay and organize around. I don't think parroting the official line is what won him all that popularity, do you?

[NYCGirl]

134. Whether you buy that it's not his job to participate, that's the job

description. Don't you remember Pelosi, Reid, and others screaming that it's not the DNC Chair's place to make policy? If anything, it's his job as DNC Chair to parrot the official line.

That might have something to do with why I (and others) really didn't want him to seek the DNC position, but he wanted it, and went for it.

[CWebster]

144. And like I said, I don't care what Pelosi and Reid demand

I never have been good at following orders and not questioning authority.

So much for "you have the power", huh Howie?

[NYCGirl]

145. Yes, "You" still have the power, which brings me back to my first

statement about you taking to task the people who can make policy.

[CWebster]

146. Nice catch 22

Dean echos DLC policy, the DLC marginalizes the base, outwardly rejects the base, Dean appeals to the base.

Yeah, that should reel in the crowds. Let us not hope that this is not the writing on the wall, when it comes to our man on the inside...because how far that star will fall and all those shattered illusions that will quietly be brushed aside.

[NYCGirl]

147. The ball's in the court of those elected officials who represent us.

Howard Dean is doing a wonderful job meeting all the red staters and getting the grassroots organization on their feet. My illusions about him are intact. Too bad about yours.

[janx]

98. I've asked those very same questions previously.

Don't expect any answers.

[Willinois]

107. It looks like your question has been answered several times.

But that you don't like the answer.

[mzmolly]

86. Very nice Eloriel. My thread replying to DK was locked for some reason?

But can be found here for those interested:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3598276

My thread was locked because they said another thread that I replied to was? Which thread that might have been remains a mystery to me?

However, I think that these internal wars deserve a hearing from both sides, and I hope all of us will be "heard" and not simply one divisive side of the issue.

I think any progressive with a brain knew Dean has been consistent on Iraq. Thanks for putting it out here for everyone to digest.

:hi:

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[mzmolly]

96. Wow.

:crazy:

[janx]

100. Yep. It seems to be quite the trend. n/t

[jpgray]

113. OK, here are answers to your questions

Why is his position on Iraq and the occupation suddenly a matter of controversy? It's NEVER been unclear, never.

His position has changed. He has stated he wants -the president's policy- to be a success. The president's policy has been to invade Iraq based on lies and then stripmine it for profit at great expense of blood and treasure and at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. That's not a policy I want to be a success, and they should not be rewarded for getting us into a mess by saying "it's a mess, so now we get to stay until we declare it unmessy". That's a lot of bullshit. Link that logic to Vietnam, and we'd probably still be there--it was always a "mess".

WHY, when Dean has NO policy input whatsoever and precious little influence on people who DO have policy input (Reid and Pelosi), are people trying to make Dean "at fault" here or somehow responsible for changing everything (like the whole bleepin' world, starting with Iraq), or someone to be criticized for anything at all in regards to Iraq?

No policy input whatsoever? What about Radical Activist's threads citing Dean folks taking credit for the party's new spine? You can't have it both ways. DNC chair is not a key policy position beyond determining the source and nature of funding, but Dean isn't being asked to change everything, he's being asked not to endorse the president's terrible Iraq policy. No one forced him to say what he said, and he certainly didn't have to phrase it as hoping THE PRESIDENT'S POLICY is a success. Wish for a free democratic Iraq, but don't wish Bush's larcenous foreign policy success, please.

Critics of Bush's occupation policy should go after Reid and Pelosi to effect change. Dennis Kucinich knows this. WHY is he going after Dean? And if he thinks Dean should be doing something different WHY is he going after Dean publicly instead of simply picking up the phone?

Reid and Pelosi have never spoken for the activist left. Dean has. People think they can have a dialogue with Dean they can't have with other party reps. I don't personally think Dean's comment was elaborate or explicit enough to warrant a bunch of public snark, but there is plenty of room for disagreement with what he said.

Why is PDA trafficking in misrepresetantations about Dean when Dean's position on Iraq has never been a secret, never been as "nuanced" as a certain other candidate's position, never been inconsistent, and has NOT recently changed in any way?

Supporting the president lying to get into war, the wholesale theft of Iraqi natural resources and the construction of fourteen imperialist bases is -very much so- a new tack for Dean. Denying that isn't going to get you anywhere.

[MuseRider]

136. I guess nobody

really wanted the answers after all. :shrug:

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

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

[MuseRider]

169. Some maybe

but not all. It is a tricky thing. I just thought it was interesting how long it went without response.

[Guaranteed]

159. No, that is NOT the policy that Dean supports.

Dean does not support exploiting Iraq's resources. Give me a break.

The policy he is referring to is getting them a democratic government up and running. You know that. How you can even argue with that, I have no idea.

[jpgray]

160. He wishes the president's policy great success

You don't think it's the president's policy to stripmine Iraq in pursuit of making his cronies and spear-carriers rich? I agree that Dean doesn't and didn't mean this, but that's exactly why he shouldn't have put it in those words. Supporting the president's policy and supporting a free democratic Iraq are in my view and in the view of many progressives two different things, and he shouldn't have said one when he meant the other. I don't believe Dean supports all those things, but the way he expressed himself left things open to that interpretation when he could have easily expressed the same sentiment while avoiding that difficulty altogether.

And again, this doesn't seem like a big enough deal to me to warrant a lot of public abuse, but as long as it's out there I will say I see the point of these letters.

[janx]

177. Doesn't matter. They're into the anti-Dean schtick and the lies.

It's going to rise up and bite them in the backside sooner or later, but they don't realize it yet.

[eridani]

191. Then he needs to articulate that policy--

--as an alternative to wishing Bush "tremendous success." That is what Kucinich is asking him to to--publicly differentiate the Dems from Bush.

[Algomas]

148. Let's open the window and let some of this hot air out...

First off, I think we can agree that the Dems are complicit in the crimes against America. After all, they take bribes from the same slime the Repukes do. For Dean to agree with anything Bu$hco does smacks of collaborating to me. If we hope to salvage our democracy we must not get tied down by partisanship. Apologizing for Dean, Kerry and the rest of the so called Democrat leadership does not further our cause. Since the media will not hold their feet to the fire, it is up to us, the grassroots to apply the heat.
We need to demonstrate contrition to the rest of the world and work to repair the damage we have caused. The situation is such that an immediate withdrawal may not be possible. That however is no excuse to blindly stay the course. This just guarantees a protracted hell of unnecessary death and suffering. The Dems should be demanding a timetable for withdrawal and for justice for those mistreated by our imperial folly.
It seems to me that the unspoken Democratic Party attitude is that since we are on this road we are committed to follow it to the pot of black gold.
Unfortunately for us all, this road leads to a dead end.

[eridani]

192. That is the attitude of some Dems, not all

Obviously not Kucinich. Most are not so much in favor of the Bush policy as unable to honestly confront what it means. That is the point of lobbying Dean, the DNC, and any and all prominent Dems--to get them to do that.

[Larkspur]

150. Excellent!!! Send a copy of this post as a letter to Kucinich,

Commondreams, The Nation, IndyMedia, etc.

Here's my Open Letter to Dennis Kucinich
http://tinyrippleofhope.blogspot.com/

[Itsthetruth]

155. Dean Supporters Ought To Write To Howard Dean!

Howard Dean is incapable of speaking and writing for himself?

It interesting how several people are trying to respond on Dean's behalf. Perhaps they could lighten their burden by writing to Howard Dean and urging him to respond to the letters of Congressman Kucinich and Tom Hayden. After all, the Hayden and Kucinich letters were addressed to Howard Dean, not posters on DU.

Let Dean speak for himself. He's wasn't so shy before he became head of the Democratic Party National Committee.

[Larkspur]

157. I'm speaking as a member of my town's Dem Comm, who endorsed Dean for

the DNC Chair. I'm the one who made the motion to endorse Dean, so I feel a special obligation to challenge Kucinich on this letter.

Dean is busy doing what I want him to do -- rebuild the Dem Party. Kucinich's letter is a cheap shot at Howard Dean.

[eridani]

193. And I made the motion in my LD to endorse Dean for chair.

I did so because his attitude toward grassroots party organization is exactly what we need right now. And if "we have the power," that certainly should include the power to lobby for an official Dem policy on Iraq that is distinct from that of Bush.

[David Zephyr]

173. Again, Tom Hayden's "Open Letter to Howard Dean"

Like you, Eloriel, I am a big supporter of Howard Dean. I supported him for President and supported him for Chair against the DLC and Clinton move against him.

There seems to be some misunderstanding about Tom Hayden's letter to Howard Dean from reading many of the posts in your thread. Hayden's "Open Letter" should not be bunched with others, but rather should stand on its own.

Perhaps it would be good for many here to actually read and, in some cases, re-read what Tom Hayden actually wrote to Howard Dean.

I happen to agree with Tom when he writes: "I do not believe the Iraq War is worth another drop of blood, another dollar of taxpayer subsidy, another stain on our honor. Our occupation is the chief cause of the nationalist resistance in that country. We should end the war and foreign economic occupation. Period."

Politics and elections aside, Tom is right.

In any event, I have posted Tom's good letter, as it was published in The Nation below for all those who wish to read what he actually said.

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

Open Letter to Howard Dean
By Tom Hayden
The Nation

Thursday 28 April 2005

"Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out," Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean told an audience of nearly 1,000 at the Minneapolis Convention Center on April 20th. "The president has created an enormous security problem for the US where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there."
I agree with Dean - a political figure I admire - that the war in Iraq has put the US in greater danger. But the question facing us today is who will speak for the millions of Americans who believe that continued occupation increases the danger? Who will speak for the millions who believe that the US has gotten bogged down in Iraq? Who will speak out against the (majority of the) Democratic Party's silent consent to the Bush Administration's Iraq war policies? Who will speak out about the wrenching human and economic costs of occupation? Who will speak out in support of a clear and honorable exit strategy? Who will make a clear, unequivocal declaration that the US will not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq?

For those who believe that America needs to change course, Tom Hayden's open letter to Howard Dean appealing to him not to take the antiwar majority of the Democratic Party for granted is an eloquent and important document. Read it, share it.
-- Katrina vanden Heuvel

Dear Chairman Dean,

Thank you kindly for your call and your expressed willingness to discuss the Democratic Party's position on the Iraq War. There is growing frustration at the grass roots towards the party leadership's silent collaboration with the Bush Administration's policies. Personally, I cannot remember a time in thirty years when I have been more despairing over the party's moral default. Let me take this opportunity to explain.

The party's alliance with the progressive left, so carefully repaired after the catastrophic split of 2000, is again beginning to unravel over Iraq. Thousands of anti-war activists and millions of anti-war voters gave their time, their loyalty and their dollars to the 2004 presidential campaign despite profound misgivings about our candidate's position on the Iraq War. Of the millions spent by "527" committees on voter awareness, none was spent on criticizing the Bush policies in Iraq.

The Democratic candidate, and other party leaders, even endorsed the US invasion of Falluja, giving President Bush a green-light to destroy that city with immunity from domestic criticism. As a result, a majority of Falluja's residents were displaced violently, guaranteeing a Sunni abstention from the subsequent Iraqi elections.

Then in January, a brave minority of Democrats, led by Senator Ted Kennedy and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, advocated a timetable for withdrawal. Their concerns were quickly deflated by the party leadership.

Next came the Iraqi elections, in which a majority of Iraqis supported a platform calling for a timetable for US withdrawal. ("US Intelligence Says Iraqis Will Press for Withdrawal." New York Times, Jan. 18, 2005) A January 2005 poll showed that 82 percent of Sunnis and 69 percent of Shiites favored a "near-term US withdrawal" (New York Times, Feb. 21, 2005). The Democrats failed to capitalize on this peace sentiment, as if it were a threat rather than an opportunity.

Three weeks ago, tens of thousands of Shiites demonstrated in Baghdad calling again for US withdrawal, chanting "No America, No Saddam." (New York Times, April 10, 2005) The Democrats ignored this massive nonviolent protest.

There is evidence that the Bush Administration, along with its clients in Baghdad, is ignoring or suppressing forces within the Iraqi coalition calling for peace talks with the resistance. The Democrats are silent towards this meddling.

On April 12, Donald Rumsfeld declared "we don't really have an exit strategy. We have a victory strategy." (New York Times, April 13, 2005). There was no Democratic response.

The new Iraqi regime, lacking any inclusion of Sunnis or critics of our occupation, is being pressured to invite the US troops to stay. The new government has been floundering for three months, hopelessly unable to provide security or services to the Iraqi people. Its security forces are under constant siege by the resistance. The Democrats do nothing.

A unanimous Senate, including all Democrats, supports another $80-plus billion for this interminable conflict. This is a retreat even from the 2004 presidential campaign when candidate John Kerry at least voted against the supplemental funding to attract Democratic voters.

The Democratic Party's present collaboration with the Bush Iraq policies is not only immoral but threatens to tear apart the alliance built with antiwar Democrats, Greens, and independents in 2004. The vast majority of these voters returned to the Democratic Party after their disastrous decision to vote for Ralph Nader four years before. But the Democrats' pro-war policies threaten to deeply splinter the party once again.

We all supported and celebrated your election as Party chairman, hoping that winds of change would blow away what former president Bill Clinton once called "brain-dead thinking."

But it seems to me that your recent comments about Iraq require further reflection and reconsideration if we are to keep the loyalty of progressives and promote a meaningful alternative that resonates with mainstream American voters.

Let me tell you where I stand personally. I do not believe the Iraq War is worth another drop of blood, another dollar of taxpayer subsidy, another stain on our honor. Our occupation is the chief cause of the nationalist resistance in that country. We should end the war and foreign economic occupation. Period.

To those Democrats in search of a muscular, manly foreign policy, let me say that real men (and real patriots) do not sacrifice young lives for their own mistakes, throw good money after bad, or protect the political reputations of high officials at the expense of their nation's moral reputation.

At the same time, I understand that there are limitations on what a divided political party can propose, and that there are internal pressures from hawkish Democratic interest groups. I am not suggesting that the Democratic Party has to support language favoring "out now" or "isolation." What I am arguing is that the Democratic Party must end its silent consent to the Bush Administration's Iraq War policies and stand for a negotiated end to the occupation and our military presence. The Party should seize on Secretary Rumsfeld's recent comments to argue that the Republicans have never had an "exit strategy" because they have always wanted a permanent military outpost in the Middle East, whatever the cost.

The Bush Administration deliberately conceals the numbers of American dead in the Iraq War. Rather than the 1,500 publicly acknowledged, the real number is closer to 2,000 when private contractors are counted.

The Iraq War costs one billion dollars in taxpayer funds every week. In "red" states like Missouri, the taxpayer subsidy for the Iraq War could support nearly 200,000 four-year university scholarships.

Military morale is declining swiftly. Prevented by antiwar opinion from re-instituting the military draft, the Bush Administration is forced to intensify the pressures on our existing forces. Already forty percent of those troops are drawn from the National Guard or reservists. Recruitment has fallen below its quotas, and 37 military recruiters are among the 6,000 soldiers who are AWOL.

President Bush's "coalition of the willing" is steadily weakening, down from 34 countries to approximately twenty. Our international reputation has become that of a torturer, a bully.

The anti-war movement must lead and hopefully, the Democratic Party will follow. But there is much the Democratic Party can do:

First, stop marginalizing those Democrats who are calling for immediate withdrawal or a one-year timetable. Encourage pubic hearings in Congressional districts on the ongoing costs of war and occupation, with comparisons to alternative spending priorities for the one billion dollars per week.

Second, call for peace talks between Iraqi political parties and the Iraqi resistance. Hold hearings demand to know why the Bush Administration is trying to squash any such Iraqi peace initiatives. (Bush Administration officials are hoping the new Iraqi government will "settle for a schedule based on the military situation, not the calendar." New York Times, Jan. 19, 2005).

Third, as an incentive to those Iraqi peace initiatives, the US needs to offer to end the occupation and withdraw our troops by a near-term date. The Bush policy, supported by the Democrats, is to train and arm Iraqis to fight Iraqis - a civil war with fewer American casualties.

Fourth, to further promote peace initiatives, the US needs to specify that a multi-billion dollar peace dividend will be earmarked for Iraqi-led reconstruction, not for the Halliburtons and Bechtels, without discrimination as to Iraqi political allegiances.

Fifth, Democrats could unite behind Senator Rockefellers's persistent calls for public hearings on responsibility for the torture scandals. If Republicans refuse to permit such hearings, Democrats should hold them independently. "No taxes for torture" is a demand most Democrats should be able to support. The Democratic Senate unity against the Bolton appointment is a bright but isolated example of how public hearings can keep media and public attention focused on the fabricated reasons for going to war.

Instead of such initiatives, the national Democratic Party is either committed to the Iraq War, or to avoiding blame for losing the Iraq War, at the expense of the social programs for which it historically stands. The Democrats' stance on the war cannot be separated from the Democrats' stance on health care, social security, inner city investment, and education, all programs gradually being defunded by a war which costs $100 billion yearly, billed to future generations.

This is a familiar pattern for those of us who suffered through the Vietnam War. Today it is conventional wisdom among Washington insiders, including even the liberal media, that the Democratic Party must distance itself from its antiwar past, and must embrace a position of military toughness.

The truth is quite the opposite. What the Democratic Party should distance itself from is its immoral and self-destructive pro-war positions in the 1960s which led to unprecedented polarization, the collapse of funds for the War on Poverty, a schism in the presidential primaries, and the destruction of the Lyndon Johnson presidency. Thirty years after our forced withdrawal from Vietnam, the US government has stable diplomatic and commercial relations with its former Communist enemy. The same future is possible in Iraq.

I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, not to take the anti-war majority of this Party for granted. May I suggest that you initiate a serious reappraisal of how the Democratic Party has become trapped in the illusions which you yourself questioned so cogently when you ran for president. I believe that an immediate commencement of dialogue is necessary to fix the credibility gap in the Party's position on the Iraq War. Surely if the war was a mistake based on a fabrication, there is a better approach than simply becoming accessories to the perpetrators of the deceit. And surely there is a greater role for Party leadership than permanently squandering the immense good will, grass roots funding, and new volunteer energy that was generated by your visionary campaign.

Tom Hayden

[mzmolly]

176. I like Hayden's letter (for the most part) and agree with much of what he

says.

I couldn't agree more with this statement the insinuation of "silent consent" aside.

"At the same time, I understand that there are limitations on what a divided political party can propose, and that there are internal pressures from hawkish Democratic interest groups. I am not suggesting that the Democratic Party has to support language favoring "out now" or "isolation." What I am arguing is that the Democratic Party must end its silent consent to the Bush Administration's Iraq War policies and stand for a negotiated end to the occupation and our military presence. The Party should seize on Secretary Rumsfeld's recent comments to argue that the Republicans have never had an "exit strategy" because they have always wanted a permanent military outpost in the Middle East, whatever the cost. "

However ... I take issue with this characterization among other things:

"I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, not to take the anti-war majority of this Party for granted. May I suggest that you initiate a serious reappraisal of how the Democratic Party has become trapped in the illusions which you yourself questioned so cogently when you ran for president. I believe that an immediate commencement of dialog is necessary to fix the credibility gap in the Party's position on the Iraq War. Surely if the war was a mistake based on a fabrication, there is a better approach than simply becoming accessories to the perpetrators of the deceit. And surely there is a greater role for Party leadership than permanently squandering the immense good will, grass roots funding, and new volunteer energy that was generated by your visionary campaign."

I think the insinuation that Dean is trapped in an illusion he himself questioned is ridiculous. Also, I think to characterize Dean as an accessory to deceit about the war is totally unfair.

As Eloriel pointed out above, Dean's position is consistent, the "pacifist" groups who supported Dean knew where he was coming from ... always. This doesn't mean that people should not be heard, but to demand that Dean take a different position on this issue is ridiculous.

[David Zephyr]

184. More.

First, I thank you for highlighting the paragraph from Tom's letter and the precise words he chose, specifically where he rules out notions of "out now" and "isolation" --- probably (and sadly) knowing in advance that many would misconsture his intentions. In spite of that, it still seems that many seemed to miss or ignore what he was saying. Perhaps they only desire to misconstrue what he was saying. In any event, I had hoped someone might spotlight that paragraph and you did so. I thank you for it. :)

The second paragraph, though makes clear that Hayden said that "the Democratic Party has become trapped in the illusions" with regards to the War in Iraq. Hayden did not say that or insinuate that "Dean is trapped in an illusion". Having known Hayden for nearly 40 years, believe me, if he thinks anyone is operating in an illusion, he would never bother writing a letter to them. I don't see how you can read that into Hayden's letter at all.

As nothingshocksmeanymore correctly stated above, there will be bloodshed no matter what. Her reference to the 1970's U.S. pull out from Viet Nam and the aftermath is probably exactly what will happen in Iraq under almost any proposed solution, except that is the one where Iraq is broken up in order to prevent that from happening.

Regardless, staying in Iraq or "staying the Bush course" is not a solution at all. We should have never invaded Iraq to begin with and now that we are "there" hardly makes staying there any more correct than the initial invasion.

I believe that polls are showing that the American people are ahead of the Democratic Party on the issue of Iraq: more and more they just want to leave.

How do we leave? We announce that we intend to leave and to turn over the "mess" to the U.N. as Dennis Kucinich suggested during the Primaries. The U.S. has a moral responsibility to finance the reconstruction of the infrastructure we destroyed during Bush's war. We can also provide troops under a U.N. or NATO umbrella. But the Bush doctrine is not a "catastrophic success", rather it is a catastrophic failure, and indeed, the single worst military mistake in American history as time will prove out.

What should the Democratic Party do? Lead.

[mzmolly]

185. I think Hayden insinuated Dean is trapped in an illusion ...

etc.

However one key point so many ignore is this:

"How do we leave? We announce that we intend to leave and to turn over the "mess" to the U.N. as Dennis Kucinich suggested during the Primaries. The U.S. has a moral responsibility to finance the reconstruction of the infrastructure we destroyed during Bush's war. We can also provide troops under a U.N. or NATO umbrella. But the Bush doctrine is not a "catastrophic success", rather it is a catastrophic failure, and indeed, the single worst military mistake in American history as time will prove out."

The UN has stated without question that they DON'T WANT OUR MESS. That point keeps falling on deaf ears. Dean is aware of this as well as many others. If Annan would not have come out and said we don't want your mess, I am certain we'd all be calling to send in other people's children.

[David Zephyr]

194. Tom Hayden doesn't insinuate, he never has.

I've known him far too long. He doesn't bother insinuating anything...especially when it comes to the issues of making war and peace. In fact, on those two very important issues, there are at most a handful of Democrats who can hold a candle to Tom. If he felt Dean was trapped in an illusion, he wouldn't have hesitated to have said so. He said the Democratic Party was trapped in an illusion with regards to the Bush doctrine. I agree with him.

When the U.S. announces its intentions to leave (which will happen sooner or later), the U.N. will act...just not as long as George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and Condi Rice are calling the shots. Don't forget that the Germans and the French are in Afghanistan right now and were there from the very beginning. Americans do not hold a patent on compassion and diplomacy.

The only thing that Nixon and Ford did differently than George McGovern had said he planned to do in 1972 with regards to pulling out of Viet Nam was one thing: they just waited longer to do so. That was it. Of course, George McGovern did not call Nixon and Ford weak when they did exactly what he had said was necessary.

[mzmolly]

200. Well the UN contradicts your statements above, and I'll take them at

their word.

Your all assuming the UN will do something it said it won't. Sorry but I prefer our leaders to make decisions based upon the evidence at hand.

And, I still say Hayden was a bit unfair in portions of his letter.

[eridani]

195. But what if we actually renounced the policy of conquest?

They don't want our mess because they don't want to sign on to our policy of establishing a permanent military base in Iraq contrary to the wishes of its inhabitants. Who in their right mind would? And how do you know that their current attitude would not change if our policy really changed?

[mzmolly]

199. They don't want to "die" is more like it.

:eyes:

[Moderator]

206. Locking Can we please just move on Folks?

This is not conducive discussion for party unity.