THE DEAN DECEPTION: The lying S.O.B.

[DuctapeFatwa]

Here is Dean giving Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post the real scoop:

"'I don't even consider myself a dove,' he told me and my colleague Ruth Marcus..at a time when many politicians are shuddering at President Bush's ambitions to remake the Middle East..Dean sounds if anything more committed than Condoleezza Rice to bringing democracy to Iraq...

Dean, the alleged "anti-war" candidate, agrees with Condi Rice's concept of a "generational" project to bring "democracy" to Iraq, and joins Bill Kristol in questioning the depth and endurance of the President's commitment...

imagine President Dean doing what he told the Post he'd do:

"Dean would impose a 'hybrid' constitution, 'American with Iraqi, Arab characteristics. Iraqis have to play a major role in drafting this, but the Americans have to have the final say.'...

I want to apologize to my readers for ever saying a single good word about the double-talking, double-dealing, dubious Dean..

Not to make any excuses for myself – I can't say my friends didn't warn me – but many have been taken in by Dean's ostensible opposition to the Iraq war...

There is a case to be made that a Dean victory would be worse than four more years of Team Bush...

I was really looking forward to an election year with some real debate over the question of the Empire, with at least Dean speaking up for the traditional anti-imperialism of the Democratic party's Bryanite-McGovenite wing. But I'm afraid that this time around the whole spectacle is going to be a crashing bore. Who cares if the two wings of the War Party engage in a foreign policy "debate"? ...

In any case, the Dean deception is the kind of fraud that opponents of our interventionist foreign policy would do well to steer clear of. He is no more opposed to our imperial foreign policy than is Joe Lieberman – or George W. Bush, for that matter. In spite of the electorate's increasing nervousness over the occupation of Iraq, all the major presidential candidates for President are singing the same hymn to global intervention, albeit in different keys. Wake me when it's over.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j082703.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[peabody71]

2. Over reacting a bit?

I don't get your angle. Obviusly something has to be done in Iraq.

[trumad]

3. The writers an asshole

Here's a nice little paragraph from this idiot!
"Yes, but what about World War II?" There was a triumphant finality in his voice, as if to say: Gotcha! "What would you have done then?"

"Stayed out of it. After all, what did we get out of it? Soviet-occupied Europe and half a century of Cold War."

So he thought the U.S should have stayed out of WW2? The guy's full of shit and not a very good writer...

[Cha]

4. bushit.

[liberalmuse]

5. Bush better than Dean? PLEASE!!!!

You've lost all credibility with that statement. Bush is the worst president in my life-time, and anyone would be hard-pressed to break his administration's record of heinous crimes against The Constitution, democracy and humanity. This sounds like the Gore = Bush crap the Greens pushed and that is SO old.

[KoKo]

6. You've got to be kidding.....saying you were "taken in by Dean..." You

discredit the intelligence of the people who are here on DU to say such a thing. Even the the folks who who support other candidates have an awareness of your former posts. You've not been "taken in" by Dr. Dean.....but you think maybe there are "suckers here?"

:eyes:

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. Are you confusing me with the author, or does Mr Raimundo post here?

What nick does he use?

[KoKo]

10. yes, you are correct I am confusing you with Justin. Your commentary

started off in such a way that it was confusing as to whether you were posting for yourself......or posting a link with a comment by another author.

My bad, Sorry... :-)'s Raimondo is the person to whom I address my comments, then. You had nothing to do with it....and I attacked you.........

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. I didn't post any commentary of my own there

It is all pasted from the original article.

I posted it here because it's an editorial or opinion piece.

[DinahMoeHum]

8. The "Nothing-But-The-Best-For-The-Oppressed" syndrome

has struck again.


:evilfrown:

[mistertrickster]

9. Unmitigated horse feces . . .

"There is a case to be made that a Dean victory would be worse than four more years of Team Bush..."

Yeah, what would that case be? Dean runs up the deficit, cuts taxes to the rich, gives no bid gov't contracts to personal friends, starts wars he can't finish, evicerates the Bill of Rights, ignores warnings of terrorist attack, stonewall investigations dealing with American civilians killed, forces public education to spend money on federal unfunded mandates, busts unions, breaks treaties, funds star wars, ruins the environment.

Oh wait, Bush did all that already . . .

[w4rma]

12. My e-mail to Raimondo

To: [e-mail]
Subject: The Dean Deception-- Raimondo

I'm not writing to change your mind on war and peace, I'm writing to clear up some inaccuracies you have about Gov. Dean. (Full disclosure: I lean towards isolationism but not so far as to oppose helping Europe defeat the Nazis whose ideology of fascism I am diametrically opposed to.)

"About facts you and I cannot differ; because truth is our mutual guide. And if any opinions you may express should be different from mine, I shall receive them with the liberality and indulgence which I ask for my own, and still cherish with warmth the sentiments of affectionate respect, of which I can with so much truth tender you the assurance." --John Adams, Jun 15, 1813
"We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." --Thomas Jefferson to William Roscoe, 1820.

You're right that Gov. Dean isn't a dove. However, he's also not a hawk. He would be better described as an owl. He opposed the invasions of Vietnam and Iraq in 2003. He supported Bush, Sr.'s "Desert Storm" and the invasion of Afghanistan (although it is my understanding that he believes that Bush has done a horrible job in Afghanistan).


Text of "The Great American Restoration" (Speech given by Gov. Dean around June 23, 2003)
…
As we experience the crisis of community at home, we are witnessing the effort to repudiate 225 years of American consensus on what our nation’s place should be in the world.

Since the time of Thomas Paine and John Adams, our founders implored that we were not to be the new Rome. We are not to conquer and suppress other nations to submit to our will. We were to inspire them.

The idea of America using its power solely for its own ends is not consistent with the idealistic moral force the world has known for over two centuries.

We must rejoin the world community. America is far stronger as the moral and military leader of the world than we will ever be by relying solely on military power. We destroyed repressive communist regimes without firing a shot, not simply by having a strong military, but because we had a better ideal to show the world.
…
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000481.html


…
Sunday, October 6, 2002; Page A12
…
Speaking at a fundraising dinner filled with activists wary about going to war again in the Persian Gulf again, Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.), and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean highlight the spectrum of opinion within the Democratic Party as lawmakers in Washington prepare to vote on a resolution authorizing war.
…
Dean, whose advocacy of liberal domestic policies has struck a chord among grass-roots activists here, offered the sharpest dissent. He contended that Bush has yet to make a compelling case to justify going to war.

"The greatest fear I have about Iraq is not just that we will engage in unwise conduct and send our children to die without having an adequate explanation from the president of the United States," he said. "The greater fear I have is the president has never said what the truth is, which is if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years to build that democracy and the president must tell us that before we go."
…
http://www.dre-mfa.gov.ir/eng/iraq/iraqanalysis_27.html


Statement from Howard Dean on Worsening Crisis in Liberia
Wednesday July 2, 2003
By: Press Office
…
"Currently, we face a challenge to our long-term security interests in West Africa, and the world faces an emerging humanitarian crisis. The situation in Liberia is unfolding in the context of increasing instability throughout West Africa - Sierra Leone is still going through a difficult transition, and more recently Cote d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) collapsed into conflict. We can ill afford a swath of instability stretching across that region. There are also credible reports that terrorist networks, including Al Qaeda, have begun to exploit that instability by, for example, trading in illegal "conflict diamonds" to finance their operations.


"As a member of the international community, and the world's leading power, we share responsibility for helping to resolve such conflicts throughout the world. Our British allies stepped up to the plate when they intervened in Sierra Leone three years ago to stabilize that situation. The French have gone into Cote d'Ivoire; and French and British troops are now doing duty in the eastern Congo. African governments have sent peacekeepers into Burundi, and West African leaders have pledged to again send thousands of peacekeepers to Liberia. Now, the British, French, UN Secretary General and our West African partners are all calling on the U.S. to assist Liberia. I believe that the US must do its share.


"We must do this not only to defend our interests, but to act as force for good in a country that has been an ally to the US for decades. The Bush administration claims to prize "moral clarity" in their conduct of foreign policy. I can think of no better way for the Administration to demonstrate this quality than to step in to assist the people of Liberia, which have long been oppressed by vicious dictators, most recently Charles Taylor. We have the power to help the people of Liberia put themselves on a path to security and eventual democracy by helping resolve a crisis. We must never again stand idly by as we did in Rwanda in the face of humanitarian crisis. That inaction remains a terrible stain on our record.


"For all of these reasons, I urge the President to act by sending U.S. troops to be a part of a multinational peacekeeping force under U.S. command to enforce a cease-fire and ensure the safety of the civilian population.


"Specifically, we should participate in a short term deployment as requested by the United Nations, the United Kingdom, France and the West Africans in which our troops comprise a significant, but not majority, portion of the force. ECOWAS (the regional organization of West Africa) has committed to sending 3000 troops. I believe that if the U.S. provided troops in the range of 2000, cooperating with ECOWAS troops but with a U.S. command, we could stabilize the situation and remain in Liberia for no more than several months, at which time a UN peacekeeping mission could be deployed to oversee a period of transition.


"Our presence is vital to securing the peace until a UN transitional authority, backed by a UN peacekeeping force, can facilitate a democratic transition and allow a reconstitution of civil society. Once our peacekeeping role has been transferred to the UN, it is imperative that we continue to support the process logistically and financially.
…
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6568&news_iv_ctrl=1301
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=7897&forum=DCForumID71

[maha]

13. There is a case to be made that electing pond scum

would be worse than four more years of Team Bush, although I'd still prefer the pond scum.

The writer appears to be holding out for a candidate with a pure, absolutist, one-size-fits-all antiwar position. The writer appears to be an idiot. But I repeat myself.

[realFedUp]

17. at least you can contain pond scum....

and remove it....

[PBinOregon]

14. This Is Way Off Base

I have to disagree with the premise of this article. I opposed this war all the way. But we can't cut and run now--the results would be devestating to the Iraqi people, and we have done more than enough damage to them in the last several decades.

The huge differrence between Dean's position and the Bush administration is that Dean is serious about an international effort to rebuild Iraq now that we have foolishly invaded it. Dean would go to the UN and do what Bush is unwilling to do--admit that the war was wrong, a terrible mistake, and seek a true international coalition to help develop a government and an infrastructure that will finally actually benefit the people there.

Dean would make an immediate change from an occupying force, which we are now, to a United Nations mission clearly defined to address the damage, support human rights and seek peace in that region.

Bush seeks to exploit Iraq for the benefit of his cronies; Dean seeks to heal. If there is another path you can suggest that will not make the situation worse than it is now, I'd love to hear it. An immediate withdrawl would lead to a religious civil war and a massive bloodbath, and the odds are that whoever wins will rule with a harshness similar to Saddam. Women's rights? Not a chance in that scenario. The UN is the only possible route, as difficult as it is. With a UN force in charge and with a clear groundplan to a new Iraqi government, there is a chance that the violence will fade. As a dove myself, I would argue that unless we make this attempt, we doom the people of Iraq to violence and death for years to come.

Another huge difference--I can't see a Dean administration supporting vicious and oppressive regimes like the Reagan and Bush I administrations did that have led us to the two Iraqis wars. Dean might not be "pure" in a philosophical sense, but I believe that his desire to actually serve and help people, to bring progress to our country and the rest of the world, is absolutey sincere. I've followed his statements, interviews, speeches, etc. for over a year now. He has been absolutely consistent, no deception that I can see any step of the way.

Thanks for the time and consideration.

Onward,
Peter Buckley

[anti_shrub]

15. The moment its revealed Dean has ties

to people who have planned wars decades in advance and makes policy based on how it enriches his friends first and the security of the nation second, i'll believe he's the same as Bush.

[gully]

16. Rebuttal by Mike Hersh

: THE DEAN DECEPTION - it's not credible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We HAVE to beat Bush barely a year from now. We don't have time
to waste
futzing around and slashing each others' throat. Run to beat
Bush, not
each other. Never forget we're on the same side. Bush is the
enemy.
Unity for victory in November 2004.

mikehersh.com

[Newtopia]

18. Easy there

I think you are really drawing quite a few drastic conclusions from the above mentioned source material. First of all, the Republicans named Dean the "anti-war" candidate, he didn't name himself that. What Dean is flappin' his gums about is being lied into a war, and having no preparation for post-war administration. Also, Dean is laying into the motives behind the war. But he has never said he was "anit-war", nor has he said he'd withdraw the troops if elected.

The sad truth is, Bush et.al got us into this mess, and we can't just up and leave, for a hundred odd reasons. We will be there, despite how much we hate it, for a long, long time. What becomes of paramount importance is the manner in which we choose to create and impliment a post-Bush foreign policy, to repair the sever damage those morons have inflicted upon nation and its credibility.

And you are way off base comparing him to Lieberman. Lieberman is a Free Trade Protectionist, a corporate shill, a social conservative, and, basically, a politician.

Read this, it may help you round out your opinions on Dean:


"THE PROGRESSIVE CASE FOR DEAN"


Why, of the establishment candidates, should progressives choose Dean? His web-focused campaign has the potential to revolutionize the way American politics operates, and progressives ought to be taking note.

by Nico Pitney

http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/issues/v2issue4/features/casefordean.shtml

[QuietStorm]

19. I never liked Dean

and it is funny because I haven't much followed the campaign process here. I did hear the debate between all of the wannabes, but Dean read as status quo I don't even know why I felt that, but that was my read on sight knowing nothing about him.

Now I haven't read the article yet, and while I do like Justin, I really do, I also take into consideration that he is a conservative (he calls it "true" conservatism) and Buchanan did write the introduction for Justin's book on the topic. This does not discredit Raimondo's work, he sources himself very well, and I tend to follow his criticism of the neocons and the US hawks in agreement. I just always remember his own political stance. Probably I will agree with Justin here. I have to read the article to say for sure, but without meaning to I just provided readers with how one goes into reading the views of another (which will always have a subjective slant however objective the author may attempt to be) already with a slant and I will tell you the truth, my anti-dean slant is based mostly on intuition summed up in my sense that he REEKS OF THE STATUS QUO and I am definitely ANTI-STATUS QUO. It needs to be dismantled in a big way. I am not sure any of the candidates are up to the job, including GORE , BTW.

I am not proud of this feeling, but I must admit I see no power in my vote, nor do I see any power in the voting process. Especially when both parties seem to be just playing a game of good cop bad cop. Both relatively on the same team. Although I can't say we would be in this mess if Gore had been the high courts choice rather than bush.

[QuietStorm]

20. Here's a Counterpunch Echo of Raimondo regarding Dean

Howard Dean: the Progressive Anti-War Candidate?
Some Vermonters Give Their Views

By DONNA BISTER, MARC ESTRIN
and RON JACOBS
(The Editorial Collective of the Old North End RAG)

Howard Dean the liberal, anti-war candidate? The laughter rings most loudly in Vermont.

As Dean's candidacy caught fire over the summer, a number of articles have appeared on the net examining his history and current stance on important national and international issues. They all point to a Clintonesque Republicrat whose stances are not far from that of the current administration.

Foreign Policy

Although he publicly opposed attacking Iraq -- a smart political move setting him apart from the other Democratic candidates -- Dean recently declared in a Washington Post interview that he is now opposed to a pullout of US troops from Iraq. According to the interview, he now feels we must stay as a matter of national security, and not allow another anti-American regime to develop. Of course, events on the ground seem to indicate that the occupation itself is what is creating anti-Americanism in Iraq, but most politicians wont acknowledge that. Deans basic objection to the war was to the Bush administrations unilateral approach, without UN approval. But what about Washington-driven wars that are not unilateral? What if the Security Council were arm-twisted into support? What about multilateral wars like the war on Iraq in 1991, or the ones on Yugoslavia and Afghanistan? Plain and simple--Dean supported them.

more...
http://www.counterpunch.com/


LIKE I SAID : status quo

[DavidMS]

22. Actualy it seems for once a presidential canadate knows history...

If we were to get out of Iraq now, civil war would result with the result being an neo-islamist state (think of the Taliban with large oil reserves). The problem isn't Jiahadists or Bathist die hards, but Sunnis who are used to running the place being told to go pound sand. That means that to fix the problem is to stay and agressively put down the gurella insurection. Its not pretty but the other option is far worse.

The best we can hope for is to install a enlightened despot with a rubber stamp national assembly by pulling out qickly. By staying its possible to have a more democratic nation-state emerge.

Its the best of many ugly options.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[wabeewoman]

21. There ought to be a logic detector

so all these people who feel the need to share their view of reality in opposition to facts can be sent through it. (Maybe I mean a bullshit detector) This is the kind of argument that my RW brother would buy but if you have the ability to reason and a logical thought process it doesn't hold water. The hypothesis is unsupported by facts and the evidence doesn't lead to the conclusion.

"He is no more opposed to our imperial foreign policy than is Joe Lieberman – or George W. Bush," PLEEEZE!!!

[Cocoa]

24. what I don't get...

how did this guy ever think Dean was a principled pacifist? It's not Dean's fault, it's Justin's own fault for not paying attention. Dean's stance on Iraq is just positioning, which is fine, but no one should accuse him of pretending to be Dennis Kucinich.

Why hasn't Justin been supporting Kucinich all along?

[mefoolonhill]

25. dean

If you search in Justin Raimondo's archives you'll find his glowing article on Dean, written just a few months before this immature hatchet job.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

26. Projection clearly going on...

Having known absolutely NOTHING about Howard Dean prior to his running (except his signing the VT domestic partner law) I watched with interest in the ideas he was presenting.

I got the impression he was anti-Iraq war but not anti-war, in general.

I never got the impression he was a liberal in the classic sense, more of a centrist/state's rights kind of guy.

I saw the "anti-war" and "liberal" labels put on him by the media, the RW, and some liberal folks who hadn't done their research on him.

I didn't see him making any attempts to overtly wrap himself in these idealogies, but I also didn't see attempts to discourage these impressions.

Just like Bush, there was everything you needed to know about the guy IF you bothered to look closely.

[newyawker99]

27. DuctapeFatwa

Per DU copyright rules
please post only 4
paragraphs from the
news source.


Thank you.

NYer99
DU Moderator

[NNN0LHI]

28. Psst. Come here. Got something to tell you

Justin Raimondo is a registered freeper. I have read much of his crap that he has posted over there. Get my drift?

Don