Many DU Deaniacs now defend Bush's policies in Iraq.

[Radical Activist]

I never thought I would see that day. Everyone has to decide at some point if they primarily follow their progressive principles or if they're more loyal to a political personality.

I'm surprised and disappointed to see people who were once so passionate about opposing the war in Iraq now make excuses for a leader who supports Bush's plan for the occupation. Dean has said this on more than one occasion in the last several months. If those same words had been spoken by Daschle or Kerry the Deaniacs would have expressed outrage and disgust. There is an obvious double standard going on here.

Either we support Bush's long term plans for occupation or we act like an opposition party. What happened to all the Deaniacs who demanded a strong opposition party with back bone?

Is it about principle or personalities?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

1. You Obviously Never Listened to Dean Back During the Primaries

He said the exact same thing back then that he's saying now.

So why did you support him back then, and not now? Is it about principles, or anti-establishment pique?

DTH

[Radical Activist]

6. I didn't support Dean in the primary.

I never fell for his impersonation of a liberal.
The occupation was wrong then and its wrong now. I'm just sorry that Dean was able to convince so many people that he was an anti-war candidate. It was deceptive and sidetracked the peace movement.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

8. He Was and Is Anti-War. It's Just That He's Also Pro-Responsibility.

It would be a travesty to abandon Iraq right now, after all Bush did to screw it up.

But thank you for admitting that you've always had an axe to grind for Dean, it's quite enlightening.

DTH

[Benhurst]

23. After our illegal and immoral invasion, we shouldn't abandon Iraq.

Even Hitler didn't abandon France -- he had to be forced out. :sarcasm:

[emulatorloo]

2. Gross Oversimplification Designed to Divide DU

IMHO

[Catch22Dem]

25. Exactly

[mzmolly]

30. Indeed.

Not ... even ... gonna ... respond.

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. You've lost me.

I worked on Dean's campaign from almost Day 1 and don't know anyone who worked with me who supports the occupation plan. We're still lobbying and demonstrating.

Admittedly I've had my head in an academic sand pile for the last few weeks. Please tell me that Dean hasn't softened and is now supporting Bush in Iraq.

[Radical Activist]

9. This is an interesting post.

Why would you and your co-workers support a candidate in the primary who said we would have to stay in Iraq for at least a few more years, if not more. It seems you were supporting someone who didn't support your views on the war.

Dean has been saying for a while now that he wishes the President's plan in Iraq will be successful and that we can't get out now that we're there. Kucinich finally called him on it, so people are pissed.

[Don Claybrook]

4. Well, you're right, but you're still about to be bombarded

For a couple of days now, I've been reading about what a terrible human being Dennis Kucinich is. These same people will be along shortly, probably before I finish this post.

I always liked Howard Dean, and I still do. But I believe that he's wrong on his occupaton stance, and I believe Kucinich to be right, even if he's wrong about the number of senators voting for war authority.

Good luck.

[Radical Activist]

13. Thanks.

Kucinich isn't really the issue with all this. We have to decide if we're going to be the opposition party that Dean said he would give us, or go back to the same old thing. I think Dean supporters calling up Dean and telling him he's wrong on this would go a long way.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

17. Opposition Party Does Not Equal Oppose Everything

It means you oppose certain things smartly, and you oppose certain things on principle. It's stupid to try to oppose everything, just for the sake of opposing.

The only two candidates who supported an immediate withdrawal during the primaries were Kucinich and Sharpton. They got close to zero support from their fellow Democrats.

Dean's position is the position of most Democrats I know, and most elected Democrats. I think he's doing exactly what he said he'd do.

The fights against Social Security Destruction and GOP One-Party Rule are smart fights, and fights on principle. Just wanting to take all the troops home RIGHT NOW is neither, IMO.

DTH

[goodhue]

5. yes

I don't know what it is about.

[democracyindanger]

7. What Dean really said

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407270006

O'Reilly lied about Howard Dean's Iraq position
FOX News Channel host Bill O'Reilly claimed that former Vermont Governor Howard Dean advocated "pull out of Iraq immediately" as a candidate in the Democratic presidential primaries. In fact, Dean advocated keeping troops in Iraq until stability was restored. During an interview with rock musician Joan Jett -- who was attending the Democratic National Convention -- on the July 26 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly asked Jett, "Howard Dean is a pretty off the wall guy as far as some of the things that he wanted -- pull out of Iraq immediately, give the terrorists a win there. Are you that liberal?"

The truth is that while Dean opposed the decision to invade Iraq, he believed that the United States had to commit the military force necessary to stabilizing Iraq. Here's what Dean said on MSNBC's Buchanan & Press on September 1, 2003: "I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the long run. Now that we're there, we're stuck there ... and we cannot leave because losing the peace is not an option. We cannot leave Iraq."

Supporting Bush's plans and leaving Iraq immediately are not the only two options just because you say they are.

[Radical Activist]

11. Yes, there are other options.

But Dean did not say he supports other options. He said he supports Bush's plan. He also said it during his debate in Oregon a few months ago, and on Meet the Press. Feel free to look it up.

[goodhue]

14. What Dean said on April 20, 2005

DNC Chairman Howard Dean stated that the United States must remain militarily engaged in Iraq. "Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out," Dean told an audience of nearly 1,000 at the Minneapolis Convention Center on Wednesday, April 20th, as reported in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. "The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there."

Chairman Dean cited three potential threats to American security that, in his opinion, require a continued American presence in that nation. The threats he enumerated were that an American withdrawal could open the door for a fundamentalist Shiite theocracy which could be worse than that which currently controls Iran; could precipitate the creation of an independent Kurdistan in the north and destabilize the neighboring Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iran, and Syria; and could cause Iraq to become an operational base for terrorist organizations in the fashion of pre-war Afghanistan.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5360513.html

[Radical Activist]

16. Thank you for the quotes.

I didn't have them handy. He has made similar statements recently, but no one made a stink about it until now.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

20. Nothing Wrong With That

Dean is referring to Bush's surface agenda, which is stabilizing Iraq and promoting democracy in the Middle East. He's not referring to the darker agendas and motives which only a small number of educated, passionate Dems (for the most part) are aware of.

I'm rooting for the success of our soldiers and a peaceful, democratic Iraq, too. I just don't think we can get there with the people and policies Bush has put into place.

DTH

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. Did he actually say he supported "Bush's plan" or are you paraphrasing?

I would really like to think the primaries are over.

I don't know what to do about Iraq. I hated us being in VietNam but hated what happened ala Pol Pot after we got out of there.

Regardless of our actions, a bloodbath is in store but to leave the place in WORSE hands than before doesn't really seem the right thing to do.

Back to the original question...did Dean say we need to stay there and clean it up to the best of our ability? Or did he say he supports Bush's plan?

[Radical Activist]

18. Post 14

is the most recent quote to that effect.

[democracyindanger]

22. paraphrasing

From #14:

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

I think it's pretty significant is that Dean said "he's there." I read that as, "Bush has got everything he wanted, so he better not fuck it up--because it's all on his head."

'Course I'm reading into his quote, but not to any lesser or greater extent than others are. And because I'm not a DU Deaniac, I guess a lot of plain ol' DUers are supporting Bush's Iraq fiasco now. Or does that make me an honorary Deaniac? Hmm. I'll have to think about that.

[LittleClarkie]

12. They don't support the plan

Dean isn't suddenly down with the Bush agenda. Neither was Kerry. That is a fundamental misunderstanding and over-simplification of their position. Are they happy we're there? No. Do they feel we can pull out now? No. Perhaps they fear that if they pull out immediately it will do still more damage than staying. Perhaps they will change their minds if things get worse over in Iraq.

I'm starting to thing many folks never really understood where Dean was coming from, or they wouldn't be surprised now.

[Radical Activist]

19. There are better ways to deal with it than Bush's way...

even among those who don't want a quick withdrawal like Kucinich does. If Dean even made an argument to that effect it would be better than expressing the kind of support for Bush that he has been lately.

[KittyWampus]

45. Well Jr. Is President Isn't He? Are You Saying Dean Should Publicly

state he wishes Bush's policy in Iraq SHOULD FAIL?

[Warpy]

15. Examples?

I haven't seen much defense of Bush policies in Iraq on these boards, at all, Deaniacs or not.

Is it about trashing Dean supporters or not?

[janx]

33. Of course it is.

And that's all it is.

But the funny thing is that this isn't about "Dean supporters," because there are no "Dean supporters" since he isn't running for anything. He's the chair of the party.

[bbmykel]

21. Oh for heaven's sake!

Could this get any more ridiculous and futile?

1. I suspect there are more than a few posts here that demonstrate that Dean has largely been consistant in his postition on this. Hopefully someone will post a link or two.

2. It takes backflips of logic to conclude that Dean = Bush on the Iraq war based upon his notion that we can't just pick up and leave immediately.

3. There are plenty of scholars on the Middle East of all political persuasions who have believed the "you broke it, you fix it" approach to this disaster. Howard Dean (not a Middle East scholar) is hardly alone in this belief. Many fine people here at DU felt that the US could not just pull out. Are they now labeled as supportive of Bush's foreign policy? Oh please! Over time, conventional wisdom (and I mean outside of the neocon nitwits) will drift towards the conclusion that the sooner the US gets out, the better. I think Howard Dean will eventually get there once the consensus of expert opinion starts to support that conclusion, because I believe he is willing to make his decisions based upon the best data available. Maybe Kucinich would have been better served to make his case directly to Howard Dean rather than create a public stir.

Which brings me to..

4. Can anyone tell me what Kucinich hoped to accomplish with this letter? It seems only to advance his own agenda to me and is very disappointing. Why not a letter to Kerry or Reid or the Democratic Party as a whole? Any of those could easily be painted with the same brush. Somehow this seems personally directed at Howard Dean in a very nasty way.

[Radical Activist]

29. None of your points address the quotes in post 14.

Second, it isn't about whether Dean changed his position. His position now is wrong either way.

I would guess that Kucinich wanted to start a public discussion, like he has obviously done, about whether or not the Democratic Party is going to oppose Bush's occupation in Iraq like Dean is, or oppose it like Kucinich is. Its an important debate that all Democratic Party members should be a part of.

[mzmolly]

49. As if people don't know what Dean said by now.

:eyes:

Post 14 states what we all know ... Dean's position has been consistant.

[mzmolly]

48. Hallelujah!

Great post!!!!

:toast:

[Romberry]

24. I can't decide...

Are you ill-informed or just dishonest? Howard Dean's position on Iraq now is no different than it was before the war began or than it was when he was running for the nomination. He was against going into Iraq to fight a needless war but he said if we did go in, we would be stuck there until the situation we created was stabilized. It's like Colin Powell's Pottery Barn rule: We broke it, we own the mess.

No one is defending Bush's "policies" in Iraq. Dean (and the rest of the in-touch-with-reality Democratic Party) just happen to understand that abandoning Iraq now leaves us with some real problems with stability in the region. You can debate whether or not that is the right approach but if you are pretending that what is being said by Dean and Deaniacs now is any differnt from what was being said before the war began or on the campaign trail, the only choices I have are to consider you ill-informed or dishonest. Since it looks like you're just trying to stir up sh*t...well...let's just say I don't really think you're that ill-informed.

[Radical Activist]

26. It was wrong then and its wrong now.

You're right, it isn't a change. Dean was never truly against the Iraq war because he always supported the occupation. Its a shame more people didn't appreciate that fact during the primary.

We can support a strategic withdrawal without voicing support for Bush's plan as Dean has done. That IS something new he didn't say during the primary. Just accept it, unless you want to find a quote from the primary when Dean says he hopes Bush's occupation of Iraq is a success.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

38. It was that hard to come up with a rebuttal huh?

I guess it can be hard to accept certain things.

[iconoclastic cat]

27. Ah, infighting!

Well, I suppose we should discuss this. It's not as if a small fascist minority is trying to impose a theocracy on us or anything right now.

[killbotfactory]

28. Yes, saying he wants Bush to fail in stabalizing iraq will win votes

thanks for drama.

[Disturbed]

35. Are "we" truely "Stuck in Iraq"?

Catch22-Iraq?

Seems that the majority of Dems in Congress support an indefinite Occupation while most Iraqis want the Occupation to end ASAP. What Iraqis want doesn't matter, does it?

[killbotfactory]

39. as long as bush is president, we are stuck

that idiot is never going to pull out.

you can either hope he pulls off some success in the stabalizing iraq, or hope the situation deteriorates so much that he's forced to realize his mistake and pull out in disgrace.

[LandOLincoln]

32. This is nothing but

flamebait.

[LittleClarkie]

34. And you know what you do with that

don't you, wink, wink, nudge, nudge?

[mzmolly]

50. Here here.

:hi:

[blondeatlast]

36. Agreed, BUT... the primaries are over, and we've got far bigger

fish to fry.

[Fleshdancer]

37. first things first, let's define Bush's policies in Iraq

as far as I can tell, Bush cares more about military base building and oil than he does about the Iraqi people or even our soldiers. Bush will keep soldiers there as long as his objectives are met. I doubt he cares about creating peace. We should all be able to agree that Dean and Bush are not on the same page when it comes to Iraq.

I'm a full-fledged Deaniac and I see what Dean is saying but I'm still personally undecided on what the best thing would be. Dean takes the "we broke it, we gotta fix it" approach which I think has some merit. I think he wants the Iraqi's safe which is honorable.

The problem I have with the assumption that keeping US forces there is that Dean is probably being way too optimistic that our soldiers can "fix things" over there. Iraq is still a violent situation and I don't know what will fix that. Bush opened Pandora's Box when he invaded and as much as we would like to think we have the power to make it better, I don't know if that's even possible. Would pulling all the troops out make things worse? I have no way of knowing until we try it.

[Radical Activist]

40. I would like to think that Dean and Bush

are not on the same page when it comes to Iraq. We have no way of knowing that lately because Dean won't say that publicly. That is what Kucinich's letter was about. I would like Dean to show some of the fire for criticizing Bush on the Iraq war issue that he showed during the primary.

[welshTerrier2]

41. personalities !!!

imagine tomorrow if Dean, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi and Clinton called for withdrawal ... would most of DU's "we're stuck in Iraq" crowd retain the same view they currently have or would they magically "see the light" ????

i suspect, like little puppy dogs on the end of their leashes, they would suddenly be part of the "leftist extremist fringe" they are currently so critical of ... of course, we'll welcome them to the movement when they finally wake up ... their candidates will bring them around to us sooner or later ...

[Radical Activist]

42. Good point.

Its sad to see so much of the left co-opted into a moderate position because of their higher loyalty to a charismatic figure. It would be nice to see it happen the other way around for a change.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

43. If That Happened, You Would Suddenly Become "Mainstream"

And so you would of course would run screaming from the label and start supporting the opposite view just so you could retain your contrarian, oppressed, outsider status.

DTH

[welshTerrier2]

52. nice try ... no cigar ...

why not just admit you are a candidate groupie ... let's note, of course, that you did NOT DISAGREE with my point that you would change your position on Iraq policy ... feel free to say whether you would or would not ... i suspect 99% of DU's candidate supporters would suddenly see the light and return here with a brand new position ... if you wouldn't, go ahead and say you wouldn't ... i don't know you ... if you say you would stick to your current views on the issue, i have no reason to doubt you ...

secondly, what basis do you have to suggest that my views against the current bush and Democratic Party policy in Iraq are not deeply held views ??? how absurd you are to think that my goal is to have a "contrarian, oppressed, outsider status" ... if i wanted outsider status, i certainly would NOT be an elected member of my town's Democratic Committee ... trust me, this is often scorned among many political groups i associate with ... and understand that opposition to the IWR has now become mainstream (i.e. the majority view) ... i opposed it ... do you think i'm now going to run around telling people i supported it ??? i support many of the policies of the Democratic Party ... but when they endorse bush's occupation of Iraq and get into bed with the neo-con agenda in Iraq, you're damned straight I will be contrarian about it ...

would you also think of me as a "contrarian, oppressed, outsider" when i gave all kinds of money to Kerry and other Democrats last year and worked my ass off for the Party ????

what makes your argument even more absurd is that the usual charges leveled by BPL's (blind party loyalists) at people with strong convictions on the issues is that they are "purists" or that they have "sacred principles" or "litmus tests" ... the criticism is that we are so stuck in our own positions that we never compromise no matter what ... well, it's refreshing now to see you criticizing my Iraq position by saying that i would throw it all away just to be contrarian ...

um, no, that won't be happening anytime soon ...

i'll tell you what we could do ... when the Democrats finally have had enough in Iraq, and eventually it will come to that, let's meet under the big clock to see which one of us has flip-flopped ... i'll give you this tip: put your money on the fact that it will be you ...

[DoveTurnedHawk]

55. Now Look Who's All Huffy

Maybe if you stopped throwing condescending stones of your own, you'd get less flak in return.

Most of the candidates and politicians who I like are eminently reasonable people, unlike most fringies I know. Accordingly, if the situation eventually changes to the extent that immediate withdrawal is desirable, I suspect that the reasonable candidates and politicians who I like, along with me, would all recognize that reality and adapt. See, I don't buy that "flip-flop" nonsense that the RW likes to use so much.

I love reality, you see. And the reality right now is that immediate withdrawal would cause utter chaos and great devastation.

DTH

[killbotfactory]

44. Maybe they just disagree with you and aren't moron robots

you think? nah. You know the one true policy and anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot, right?

thanks for the condescension

[Geek_Girl]

46. I Like Dean and support him

But I disagree with him about the occupation of Iraq. We need to leave ASAP. Iraq can not become stable as long as we are the occupying force.

[bvar22]

47. Two schools of thought:

The Dean (and the official Democratic Party position):

We broke Iraq. We must fix Iraq.
What this approach does NOT discuss is: How are we fixxing Iraq by killing more Iraqis and blowing more stuff up?
This group uses vague terms to define the goals, like stabilize Iraq, or like John Kerry's , Win in Iraq.
None of these approaches defines "stability" or "Win" whatever the fuck they may be.




The Dennis Kucinich (PDA) Position:

When you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING!

The US CAN and SHOULD begin immediate phased withdrawal.


You can tell which camp I am in. I support the Kucinich letter to Dean.
The Dr. has a much thicker skin then many of his blind faith supporters on DU.

It is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL that a public debate and open discussion be HELD within the Democratic Party and within America on this issue. The Party Position must be confronted and the many options to Staying the Course must be presented to the Nation. The "Oh Well. We're there now, so we might as well kill more Iraqis" MUST NOT be allowed to be presented as THE ONLY OPTION.



There are MANY ways to withdraw from Iraq. Most include these main points:

*Begin with a cease fire for all American Forces and a Public Announcement of Withdrawal.

*Immediately withdraw ALL American Forces to Defensive Positions.

*Evacuate Saddams Palaces, and turn them over to the Iraqi People.

*Expell ALL American Corporations and Contractors. Declare NULL and VOID any funds these Corporation say are owed to them by the Iraqi People.

*Continue to provide generous funding for rebuilding and compensation.

*The New Iraqi Government sinks or swims, or Sistani and the Shiites take over. If there is an eventiual Civil War NOTHING the US can do will prevent it.


The American Military is NOT the solution, it is the PROBLEM!

[cestpaspossible]

51. a thousand words

[LittleClarkie]

53. Whether we agree or disagree is irrelevant

The discussion has not been about agreeing or disagreeing primarily. It has been about misrepresenting Dean's stance, or misunderstanding it to the point of being surprised by it when it was reiterated. Some have made it sound as if Dean changed stances and is now a coward for going back on his position.

His position has always been thus. If folks would start from that premise at least, I think some Deaniacs would feel less like they have to defend Dean.

Not necessarily defending his war stance, just making sure things are kept fair. If you're going to criticize the man, the least you can do is have your facts straight, is all we're saying.

And I resent the implication made here that the majority of us are sheeple, following our chosen candidate off a cliff.

[msongs]

54. your "icon" is a child and women killing common criminal.....why is that?

che gueverra was nothing but a gangster who murdered anybody who got in his way, and his only cause was self glorification. He got what he deserved.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Sparkly]

56. There are more than two positions here.

It's not as simple as "stay or go." Before the invasion, there was a clearer "go" or "don't go," and many Democrats were against going (perhaps even some who voted for the IWR, but that's a separate argument).

Ever since the invasion, there have been differences on policy. BushCo, who shouldn't have ordered the invasion in the first place, has botched the entire thing and enabled it to grow worse. I think we can all agree on that.

Throughout, Democrats including Kerry, Dean and Clark have noted "closing doors" -- we had a chance to get more UN involvement, now that's gone. We had a chance to prevent more influx from other countries, now it's gone. We had a chance to secure certain areas without worse destruction, now it's gone. We had a chance, with a President Kerry, to regain trust and work with other nations in the region, put pressure on the Saudis, bring in NATO, get Iraqi troops trained more rapidly outside Iraq, etc. -- now that's gone.

When people say we all want "success" there, it doesn't necessarily mean success for the Chimp. We're past that point, even if the country were secured and troops came home tomorrow. It means peace.

There are some, like Kucinich, who believe withdrawing troops now will lead to peace. Most people do not agree. There are people in Iraq who our country have made extremely vulnerable, and in the view of many, leaving them at the mercy of whichever group has the most guns and explosives just isn't right.

I don't know of ANY Democrat who supports the Bushco policy of, as General Clark put it, making the battlefield larger instead of smaller, threatening Iran and Syria, etc...

You may believe we shouldn't stay another day. That's a valid point of view. But let's not portray everyone who thinks we should see Iraq stable before we leave as agreeing with Bushco -- it just isn't that simple.

[Moderator]

57. I'm locking this thread

reason:

Flamebait