Dean Supports "Star Wars" Missile Def & Space Weapons?? (you be the judge)

[AP]

According to Political Wire:

The attempt to moderate Howard Dean's image has begun. While the Democratic front-runner is "known to many voters as a staunch opponent of the Iraq war," he "enthusiastically supports missile defense development and declines to back a proposal to ban weapons in space," the Los Angeles Times reports.

Nonetheless, the Boston Globe notes Dean condemned "Bush's touting of a policy of preemptive self-defense, saying it was a formula for alienating other nations and an aberration from American tradition."

Meanwhile, the Des Moines Register profiles Dean's wife, Judith Steinberg Dean, noting that she "continues to lead her life much as usual in Burlington, working as a physician in a small but busy medical practice and looking after the Deans' son, Paul, a senior in high school."

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. That's one reason why

I like Dennis better. He knows we need to scrap the military pork that doesn't work and shift the money to places where we need it more.

[wtmusic]

2. So, where's the contradiction?

One is a defense, the other is pre-emptive.

Don't get your point.

[AP]

4. Most Democrats I know look at Star Wars as unworkable pork which exists

to plausibly justify the transfer of billions of dollars of very large corporations listed on Wall St.

That Dean likes Star Wars, and like the 87 Bil giveaway in Iraq is very revealing.

[HuckleB]

7. Yes, but what's that got to do with the preemptive policy?

[AP]

12. It just sounds like he likes to spend money on things that make Wall St...

...rich and happy.

Could be wrong.

[HuckleB]

15. According to the LA Times editorial spin...

But what did Dean actually say on the matter? Wouldn't that be more useful as a discussion point?

And again, what does that have to do with preemptive policy?

[AP]

19. I'd love to know what the truth is. That's why I put the "??" in my...

...original post.

[HuckleB]

25. OK.

[Rose Siding]

9. You left out the part where he opposes unworkable pork

snip>
Asked whether he supports or opposes a Bush plan to begin deploying a nascent missile defense in 2004, Dean accused the current administration of rushing an untested system into the field. But he added: "Effective missile defense will be an important part of a Dean administration's national and homeland security strategy."

Dean praised President Clinton's moves toward a ground-based missile defense for the United States, "on a timetable that would ensure the deployment would be capable of actually responding to an attack." He pledged to "integrate missile defense into an overall national and homeland security effort which provides real defense for Americans at home and our forces and friends and allies abroad."
end snip>

and the part that explains what is objectionable in the int'l ban:

snip>

Currently, the U.S. military relies on satellites for intelligence, communications and other functions. Analysts say the Pentagon, under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, is exploring a military expansion in space, a shift in emphasis from past administrations.

Elaborating on Dean's position, spokesman Jay Carson said Wednesday that the candidate was concerned about broadly worded arms-control proposals that could curtail current space operations. But Carson acknowledged that Dean's positions on space and missile defense belied his reputation as a national security liberal.

[retyred]

50. So.........

dean was in favor of going into Iraq....just not the way bush did it now deans in favor of Star Wars....just not the way bush is doing it, what other bush ideas is dean in favor of....except the way bush would do them?


retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

[wtmusic]

14. It's an oversimplification to lump Star Wars

into one bundle.

Yes the fission-based x-ray beam concentrator gun that was envisioned to knock missiles out of the sky in the 80's is unworkable, like many other early concepts. Is there a conclusion here that all space weapons technology is bad? That it's all pork?

A very large corporation listed on Wall St. made that computer you're typing into right now...

[_NorCal_D_]

32. So you advocate

the construction of space lasers now? Reagan would be proud! :eyes:

[HuckleB]

3. Huh?

This is getting bizarre. So Dean is for improving defense technology, which can be an object of criticism. And that's fine. But somehow he can't be for improving defense technology and against Bush's preemptive policy? One must be for both or against both? There's no way to be for one and against the other?

[AP]

You think Star Wars is cool? You think it works? You think it isn't...

...boondoggle?


Doesn't anyone remember how the pentagon had to totally rig those tests so they could call them successes?

[HuckleB]

10. That's not what my post said.

Please respond to my post and not the post you made up in your head.

[mrgorth]

5. What is Clark's position?

anyone?

[PleaseKillMe]

21. Let a real man tell you what's wrong.

Clark's position is that he does not support a "Star Wars" Defense System. He says that terrorists aren't States, and they attack with shoe bombs, suitcase bombs, and letter envelopes...weapons which can not be destroyed with a Space Defense system. He says "Star Wars" might have been appropiate for the Cold War, but the Cold War is over.

He says the best way to defend from attack is to make it a global problem, i.e. Work with countries (Atlantic Charter) because the US is not the only country being attacked by terrorists.

Dean has no clue about foreign policy.

[HuckleB]

27. A "real man"?

Oh brother. It's getting pretty thick in here.

Can you offer links to Clark's stand on this matter?

[Cha]

43. You couldn't shovel It with

a gd forklift.

[blm]

37. Clark and Kerry are aligned on that.

Interesting. They seem to be aligned on most issues.

[bicentennial_baby]

38. Link?

Show me where Clark says these things, specifically about Star Wars and space weapons. As a Clark supporter, I would like to see this info.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

6. How many times do they need to say it?

Howard Dean is not a liberal.

[Skwmom]

8. So Dean supports corporate welfare.

Because that's what the missile defense system is. Bush/Dean - what's the difference?

[HuckleB]

13. You are reading editorial spin on Dean's stands.

You might want to get the actual policy positions before making such a statement.

[Skwmom]

20. Who would put any faith in Dean's policy statements.

He changes his opinion from day to day.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

23. Really?

I'd be interested in seeing some quotes where his opinion changes from "day to day." Please cite references and don't quote out of context.

Please note that this may require a post longer than one line.

[HuckleB]

24. Well, that's the spin that you've chosen to buy.

It's not true, but I know I won't change your opinion. I guess editorial spin on Dean is more valuable to you. That's your choice.

[PissedOffPollyana]

35. I've read the whole lot

The few that are making a clear policy stand are not very impressive to me. They are either supporting more corporate welfare & privatization or are so popular that it is a no-brainer. It is the fuzzy, rhetorical policy points that bother me. On a whole range of topics, his "policy" is both sides of the argument with no suggestion at his actual position. I've got to be honest when I say this makes me very nervous. Beyond the faux-populist thing, which I can almost forgive during an election season (those who will fall for it have only themselves to blame), there is this lack of clarity. If the man wants to lead us, he really should know where HE's going first.

On the topic at hand, it is no surprise that he is supportive of pre-emption as well as a whole range of military pork including the big lie of missile defense. That's the side the bread is buttered on. Never mind that there is no significant threat to support such an expensive system that is proven to not work anyway... it's good for a whole range of folks with bags & bags of money to throw at policy.

**sigh** I never thought I'd see the day when my party started to look & sound like Reagan without the religion.

[RetroLounge]

62. Poop

eom

[blm]

11. Wha...??? That's crazy. The science is AGAINST Star Wars.

Star Wars and mini-nukes are the first thing Kerry said he would cut out of defense.

Dean can't possibly believe that his supporters will defend even THIS.

[Skwmom]

17. You don't think Dean would let a little think like science get in is way.

If this guy is the Democratic nominee, the party deserves to implode.

[HuckleB]

18. Well, his supporters would like to see what he actually said first.

I would hope that his detractors would want to do the same. By the way, what is the stance of your candidate on this matter?

[AP]

22. This is a fair comment.

Don't trust the media.

Does anyone know what the sources are for this info.

[AP]

26. From the LA Times Article:

The conclusions are based on a survey by the Council for a Livable World -- a Washington group opposed to Bush defense policies -- that is scheduled for public release today.



The picture of Dean, the former Vermont governor who is now the Democratic front-runner, that emerges from the survey is more nuanced than the dovish image that some have of him because of his stance on Iraq.

Asked whether he supports or opposes a Bush plan to begin deploying a nascent missile defense in 2004, Dean accused the current administration of rushing an untested system into the field. But he added: "Effective missile defense will be an important part of a Dean administration's national and homeland security strategy."

Dean praised President Clinton's moves toward a ground-based missile defense for the United States, "on a timetable that would ensure the deployment would be capable of actually responding to an attack." He pledged to "integrate missile defense into an overall national and homeland security effort which provides real defense for Americans at home and our forces and friends and allies abroad."

Asked his position on an international ban on placing weapons in space, Dean declined to endorse the proposal.

"Technological development in space will continue and we should not reduce the technological advantages that our military enjoys by prohibiting the use of space for military activities," he wrote.


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-mildems11dec11,1,3077064.story

[HuckleB]

29. Thank you.

[AP]

34. Clinton tried to hold this program to strict standards

which the system was failing. He wasn't going to go forward with all the cash unless the system performed better. Then Bush became president and moved the goal posts and the program was back on. The cash changed hands even though the system wasn't performing.

That's how I remember it.

All the candidates except Gep, Sharp and CMB responded to the survey. Dean was the only one who wanted to go forward with missile defense AND wouldn't rule out missiles in space.

[LuminousX]

16. I would have to see a direct quote from Dean specifically regarding this

The Missile Defense System is a joke and needs to be scrapped. That doesn't mean we need to shut down research entirely in being able to knock a missile out in midflight, but the complete abrogation of treaties to pursue Reagan's Folly is assinine. I would need to see Dean's direct quote regarding this, not about pieces of it, not about generalizations about it, but about MDS as a whole.

I doubt he has addressed it as it really isn't a pressing issue.

If he has, and comes out in support, I will be disappointed and will hope Congress cuts the funding like they did with Bush. It doesn't make or break my support for him.

[LuminousX]

28. Interestingly enough... Dean doesn't support it...

CNN Link

Dean wants to divert money from National Missile Defense to the nonproliferation effort. Which means he may want to continue core research which I have no problems with.

More evidence
2. Increase homeland security funding. Dean would use part of the savings from the tax cut repeal to establish a Homeland Security Trust Fund dedicated to three objectives: preparation, protection, and prevention. Preparation would entail more than $5 billion in aid to local first responders. Protection would involve extra funding and more stringent security measures for ports and borders, plus money for detection and identification technology. Prevention would focus on foreign threats and would include greater U.S. financial and political involvement in programs to limit nuclear proliferation. It would be funded in part by some of the money previously set aside for missile defense.

[HuckleB]

31. Yeah, it's clear from the quotes AP offered above...

that Dean does not support Bush's plans, but is focusing on something closer to what Clinton offered, and would only go forward if the plans were realistic.

[AP]

36. It's the "weapons is space" position that separates Dean from rest.

"Technological development in space will continue and we should not reduce the technological advantages that our military enjoys by prohibiting the use of space for military activities," he wrote.

Contrast that to Kerry:

Kerry flatly opposed the Bush plan on missile defense, without endorsing a scaled-back alternative. He also supported an international ban on space weapon deployment and an increase in funding for a program to peacefully dismantle nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union.

[LuminousX]

39. Kerry is prescient

and can predict what our defense needs will be in the next decade or two. Dean lacks that ability and is choosing not to cut off avenues of defense.

Once again it has to be explained that there is a difference between considering something and actually doing it. Just because an option is kept open, doesn't mean it will be taken. Talk to me when a project is announced to put nukes in space - until then, it is a moot point. Pure speculation.

[remfan]

61. When the project is announced it'll be too late to do anything

about it..rather like the AARP coming out in support of the GOP Medicare bill and then *poof* it's passed & signed into law.

Someone out there already believes that our future "defense needs" include the ability to control the Earth via space. I, for one, am quite interested to see how *they* intend to sell this idea to the country.

The reality is that neither man can stop what's already begun, that's the real point. Whether they support it or not really makes no difference, the wheels are already turning and they will turn faster or slower as circumstances dictate, but they won't stop completely.

[Cha]

40. Thanks LuminousX....I don't know what I'd

do without accurate reporting on DU from you and the other posters who look for the truth instead of trying to smear.

[_NorCal_D_]

30. Unbelievable

This is an absolute outrage! :grr:

[salin]

33. The article linked (LA Times)

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-mildems11dec11,1,3077064.story

[Don Claybrook]

41. Star Wars is a Terrible Idea, but I'm voting Howard Dean

There, I said it. I hope to find that Howard Dean does not support any of this lunacy. However, even if he does, I will still be voting for him. I haven’t found a single candidate who represents all of my viewpoints. Kucinich comes closest, and Dean comes closer than anyone with a shot at winning. Again, I’m not going to agree with every plank of my candidate’s platform. Moreover, anyone who completely agrees with their candidate’s issues is either lying or a sheep.

There’s this tendency here to attack others’ candidates thusly: “Your candidate (supports/doesn’t support/said) such-and-such. He was quoted on December 34th, 1857 as saying (insert purportedly inflammatory quote here). What do you say for your guy now? How do you propose to defend him?”

My answer: I don’t have to defend my candidate against every damned attack made against him. If you don’t like him, don’t vote for him. I’ll keep myself educated on the various candidates, I’ll look for trends, and I’ll look for deal-killers. Then I’ll make composite scores of each of the candidates. And guess what? Dean has no deal-killers and he comes out ahead in the calculus of those candidates who actually have a chance of getting the nomination.

Further, when Dean is elected, I’ll be one of those people constantly advocating for him to push further to the left. If he’s pushing missile defense, I’ll be writing to him to let him know what a terrible idea it is. But don’t insult my intelligence by assuming you can attack the guy on one stance that may or may not be accurate and expect to sway my vote. I don’t expect to make asinine appeals for you to drop your candidate in hopes that it will sway you.

Thank you.

[KaraokeKarlton]

42. Political Wire is Lying

I just signed up so I could read the actual article. For those who don't want to do this, here is the TRUTH about what Dean said, in it's FULL context.



Asked whether he supports or opposes a Bush plan to begin deploying a nascent missile defense in 2004, Dean accused the current administration of rushing an untested system into the field. But he added: "Effective missile defense will be an important part of a Dean administration's national and homeland security strategy."

Dean praised President Clinton's moves toward a ground-based missile defense for the United States, "on a timetable that would ensure the deployment would be capable of actually responding to an attack." He pledged to "integrate missile defense into an overall national and homeland security effort which provides real defense for Americans at home and our forces and friends and allies abroad."

Asked his position on an international ban on placing weapons in space, Dean declined to endorse the proposal.

"Technological development in space will continue and we should not reduce the technological advantages that our military enjoys by prohibiting the use of space for military activities," he wrote.

Currently, the U.S. military relies on satellites for intelligence, communications and other functions. Analysts say the Pentagon, under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, is exploring a military expansion in space, a shift in emphasis from past administrations.

Elaborating on Dean's position, spokesman Jay Carson said Wednesday that the candidate was concerned about broadly worded arms-control proposals that could curtail current space operations. But Carson acknowledged that Dean's positions on space and missile defense belied his reputation as a national security liberal.

"People have, since the beginning of the campaign, tried to pigeonhole him into an ideological box," Carson said. "None of these boxes actually fit who Gov. Dean is."


And here is the link to the actual article. You have to sign up to read it, though.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-mildems11dec11,1,3077064.story

[Cha]

45. Thanks...it's a 24/7 job around here

keeping the record STRAIGHT and you help tremendously! :D

[Duder]

44. Dean opposes "Star Wars"

...

Military/Foreign Policy: Dean has called Bush's policy of renewed nuclear weapons development "insane" and opposes every significant component of "Star Wars" missile defense, declaring that any missile defense programs he would support will at least remain in compliance with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Dean also supports (with provisions, in some cases) the comprehensive nuclear test ban, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Biological Warfare Convention Protocol and the International Criminal Court (a website for the United Nations Association of the United States lists Dean as an "outspoken supporter" of the ICC). Dean supports signing the 1997 Landmine Treaty and believes that a similar treaty should be used to ban cluster bombs.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16592

[salin]

46. There is an issue raised in the LA TImes... but it is not Star Wars

that is a simple and rather disturbing (and continuing) propoganda technique that is rather unbecoming - and has already been lifted by other DUERs.

The issue is not star wars. Dean states he is against that.

He says he supports Missle Defense - continuing CLINTON's land based program (so if someone is confusing Missle Defense with Star Wars - take it up with the Clinton policies - done, of course, while spending for starwars was cut off - so it is really quite a trick to confuse these two things.)

THE REAL ISSUE - and it IS one... is the support or lack of support for a ban on the use (and future use) of space for defense technology. Kerry is for the ban, Dean is against it. Read the article for their rationales and that of other candidates.

But please, duers, stop perpetuating this newest (du spurred!) propoganda mistating info in an article to create an issue that is intentionally inaccurate.

Bad enough when Duers spread other people's propoganda (ala the Clark is a war criminal... and Kerry is BFee)... much worse when we become the source of it that will be picked up elsewhere.

[KaraokeKarlton]

47. Kerry is for a ban? That's the wrong position to take.

There are non war related military needs in space. Intelligence, navigation and weather to name just a few. What is Kerry thinking? We don't know what kind of technology is ahead of us and we can't agree to anything that could potentially put our nation at risk. That would be just plain dumb.

[AP]

58. You're ignoring the second question discussed in the article:

"Asked his position on an international ban on placing weapons in space, Dean declined to endorse the proposal."

Is that not Star Wars?

[salin]

65. It is? Or leaving the door open for unknown technology?

We don't know, do we? We do know he does not agree with bush's star wars - hence repeating it - and taking the unknown as fact seems to either be attempting to create propoganda - or an indication of bias so strong that there is an inability to represent things accurately or critically.

What that ban (support or not) means - is a legitimate point of discussion. As it is unknown - to spin it as meaning something definitive, rather than one's opinion that it leaves an opening for tech. such as starwars, are two very different things. It is the spin. The definitiveness. And the attempting to link a candidate to a hotbutton word - when it is not accurate to do so - to which I react.

[PissedOffPollyana]

49. Dean's "policy" on ICC

Duder said: a website for the United Nations Association of the United States lists Dean as an "outspoken supporter" of the ICC

While I am sure that is most likely the case, why this murky non-position position listed in his "Issues" section. It is this sort of thing that does not bode well. It seems that he makes lots of statements in speeches and interviews that are transitory and shies from the very same thing in his official platform, which is more likely to cost support and come back to bite him on the posterior.

Does this sound like outspoken support? Where does he say that we will rejoin ICC and ratify? Oh, yeah, he doesn't.

"The US has a legacy of support for and leadership in the fight for international justice and I am troubled by the Bush Administration's recent conduct with regard to the Court.  At the same time, I understand that there is concern that the Court could be manipulated for political purposes to prosecute US peacekeepers.  As President, I would ensure that US policy towards the International Criminal Court reflects America's commitment to the protection of international human rights, yet ensures that US peacekeepers will not be subject to politically motivated prosecutions. "

I think this gets to the heart of the discomfort many of us have... to take a stand, one must actually voice a clear opinion, not fuzzy suggestions of what might be policy.

[salin]

48. AP this is the most disturbing thing I have seen in awhile

you link Dean to Star Wars. The article nowhere does this. This is called propoganda. It is inaccurate, and intentionally so. Bad enough when we perpetuate propoganda pushed elsewhere at DU (ala Clark is a war criminal... or Kerry is BFEE). Much worse when we skew something - put it together in away that is intentionally misleading - and spawn the propoganda for it to be picked up elsewhere. I really never expected this from you.

Reading the LA TIMES article there is an issue - but it isn't starwars.

It says - in a survey - he was against bush rushing ahead on unproven technology (Starwars) and that program. he was for a "missle defense program" (this is NOT the same as starwars)... and would pick up where the Clinton Missle Defense program (land based) ended. So unless you are now claiming that Clintons program was starwars... you have intentionally taken "missle defense" (ala Clinton) and spun it to "StarWars" how rovian.

Now there is a real issue... which would have been a legitimate post... but of course your candidate appears to answer the same way as Dean - so I am guessing it wouldn't have served your purpose. The real issue raised was on an international ban on the use of space for defense technology. Kerry is for the ban. Dean (and Edwards) is against the ban.

This really is unworthy of you. And yes - had I caught this being done against ANY candidate in this way - I would write the same kind of debunking and angry post. DU should NOT be used as a starting point for false propoganda against ANY democratic candidate.

[AP]

54. I trusted Political Wire's headline. I think I amended the subject line

to refelct what I thought the LA Time's article said.

I don't think any of the candidates' replies realy address the question "do they support start wars."

There's definitely room to criticize what Bush does, which I've addressed above.

And there is a pretty developed debate on the issue of weapons in space, and I do think it's interesting that Dean is for that.

The real issue is whether you're willing to engage in weapons development as a pretext to hand money over to big business. That's what Clinton was against and what Bush if for. No candidate is going to come out and say they're for that too, but you have to look for clues in what they say.

[salin]

60. AP -

you intentionally spun this to tie dean to star wars. Then when his camp ties his policies to clintons you seem to ignore that (even your statement above ignores it).

Here is the irony - from the article - where Edwards stands from the survey:

Edwards supported developing missile defense "to ensure that America will be protected in the event diplomacy and prevention fail." He did not explicitly reject the Bush plan. On space arms control, he wrote: "America should be a leader in keeping weapons out of space."

Lets see. Supports missle defense... (what you slammed dean on and tried to tie him to Star Wars... and shouldn't you be glad that another DUer picked up the message and started a poll on it - to create the impression that it was a reality... go and correct it on that thread... your role in that misleading item... and I will back off.) Again - land-based missle defense ala Clinton... same as Dean.

Does not explicitly rejects the Bush Plan (where Dean seemed to be a bit stronger - but I am not sure he was definitive - so to be generous we can call that similar.)

So the question - the legitimate one... is on future use of space... focus on that without the rest of the innuendo... very legit. But the way it has been pursued here... intentionally misleading.

[AP]

70. How is it "spin" to cust and paste headline & cut and paste the article..

...and not add any editorializing and then to participate in the discussion as it evolves?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

55. OK but go back to Frontline and read up on Clinton's land based

program. After he cut missile defense, this was an appeasement of the same people and was spurred by Gingrich et al. Even the land based program is NOT effective and can't work and has the SAME barriers according to Dr Postal from MIT.

Perhaps the better question is whose expertise is likely to be more credible in the matter...Kerry's or Dean's.

[salin]

66. Again - legitimate questions

versus the attempt at propoganda. You raise the legitimate side. The thread has attempted not to do this (as the prefered candidate states the same as Dean) - which is the point to which I am objecting.

[AP]

56. For emphasis: I cut and paste Political Wire's headline.

It wasn't my invention that this was Star Wars.

I've seen Political Wire cited here before, and have never seen their credibility challanged.

[salin]

67. ah - credibility has to be charged? How about looking at the article

they use to derive the statement - which discredits the headline.

Are you telling me that you passed this stuff off - without reading the story itself (my impression is that the source is used to link items in the news - thus it is the items that are the news not the linking service)?

[AP]

69. I read the Political Wire story first, and posted that. What's wrong

with that?

[salin]

72. because the item wasn't a "story" it LINKED to a story

and you treated it as the full story. Then when challenged - kept using the spin that was inaccurate. And never backed off the inaccuracy - or the (perhaps unwittingly) spinning of propoganda (falsely linking a candidate to a hotbutton issue).

Until folks start discussion issues absent of heavy bias - we are going to have a heck of a time ever having real discussions. Instead it is posturing - spin - more posturing - slaps and flames - high fives among other co-believers... with NO real discussion because each is reading through exceptional levels of bias.

Then when the whole thing perpetuates false propoganda against ANY democratic candidate? More than pointless. Harmful.

[AP]

73. It was a story about another story. I posted the first story,

so that everyone could discuss it as I was learning more about it. I read the sources cited and went back.

I was posting LBN in GD. I put the "??" to indicate that I didn't know the answer.

Even a story without links will often invite people to go look at other origninal sources, after which you can go back and discuss.

If Political Wire didn't provide the links, are you saying that I would have done NOTHING wrong, but because they did I was SPINNING?

Does that make sense?

I'll admit now that the Political Wire headline was unfair, because it didn't reveal all the nuances. And that's why I changed it slightly. However, I have a feeling you wouldn't have been happy with any introduction of this topic.

And it still stands that Dean was the only person responding who like both the missile defense program and militarizing space. He also cited Clinton to endorse his position without explaining Clinton's history on the issue (which is that he tried to wind it down because it wasn't working and he wanted more research, and a system that worked). All that came out in the discussion, and your defenses of Dean came out because I posted this story.

Yet you get hung up on the notion that I'm spinning the story.

[Walt Starr]

51. Poop

:hurts:

[TLM]

52. As usual... no quotes from Dean on his position...

Just 3rd party op ed positions. Because Dean's actual quotes shows that the spin from the Dean bashers is, as usual, bullshit.

First off Dean is not against missile defense as a concept, but he is against throwing money at systems that do not work. His statement in the actual LA times piece showed this clearly. His position is basically the same as Clinton's was... that core research on missile defense is OK but he's not going to put tons of money into systems that don't work. To try and spin that as Dean supporting Reagan style Star Wars programs is nothing but the same level of dishonest crap that we've come to expect from Dean bashers desperate for anything to attack Dean with.


Asked whether he supports or opposes a Bush plan to begin deploying a nascent missile defense in 2004, Dean accused the current administration of rushing an untested system into the field. But he added: "Effective missile defense will be an important part of a Dean administration's national and homeland security strategy."

Dean praised President Clinton's moves toward a ground-based missile defense for the United States, "on a timetable that would ensure the deployment would be capable of actually responding to an attack." He pledged to "integrate missile defense into an overall national and homeland security effort which provides real defense for Americans at home and our forces and friends and allies abroad."


Asked his position on an international ban on placing weapons in space, Dean declined to endorse the proposal.

"Technological development in space will continue and we should not reduce the technological advantages that our military enjoys by prohibiting the use of space for military activities," he wrote.


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-mildems11dec11,1,3077064.story


And now the bashers seem to have figured out that this crap accusation won't fly... so they are shifting to accuse Dean of supporting nukes in space. Yet again if you read Dean's position you see that Dean simply does not endorse this particular proposal because the definition of what constitutes a weapon in space is not very clear. It could also include spy satellites or even communications satellites used for military applications.

So the truth... Dean supports research into ground based missile defense systems but not dumping money into systems that don't work... just like Clinton did. And Dean does not support this particular ban on weapons in space because the definition of weapons are too broad.

And from this the Dean bashers get that Dean supports Reagan's star wars programs and wants nukes in space. Again this begs the question, if Dean is so bad… why do the Dean bashers have to lie and spin in order to attack him?

[KaraokeKarlton]

53. Shame on you for spreading falsehoods

Whose team are you on anyway?

[AP]

57. seemed like an important issue to discuss when I saw the Political Wire

headline.

Do you disagree?

[KaraokeKarlton]

59. You should have taken the two minutes it took to actually read the article

and if you still felt it warranted discussion you should have started an accurate, informative and fair thread instead of the happy horseshit you posted.

[AP]

68. I cut and paste the whole article, I put the question marks in.

What more do you want me to do.

I was evaluating it at the same time everyone else did.

If it was LBN, I would have left out the "??" and I would have done nothing wrong.

You people need to settle down.

[Patriot_Spear]

63. AP has an Agenda against Dean- here's the proof. NOT a Personal Attack

This is NOT a personal attack- this is merely a statement of fact using AP's own post.

AP is perfectly entitled to whatever opinion he chooses to hold; But his motive where Dean is concerned is clear.

[AP]

71. What do you think that means?

Dean's statements invite critical analysis. Hardly a day goes by when Dean doesn't say something that demands deeper inspection.

[Patriot_Spear]

74. Here's what your saying, 'I admit I'm biased, but believe me anyway...'

give me a break.

[AP]

75. It means I'm willing to hold the microscope to Dean's words while most

aren't.

That's not bias.

Bias is if I were willing to close my eyes to what the microscope reveals because it isn't what I want to see, or if I weren't willing to hold the microscope up in the first place.

[Patriot_Spear]

76. Look, they're YOUR words- quit trying to fool people.

[RetroLounge]

64. Poop and more poop

eom