This needs further discussion

[genius]

If I had seen this article back in April, I would have stopped working on Dean's campaign the next day. Instead, it took me longer to wake up.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0414-09.htm

Published on Monday, April 14, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
As Baghdad Falls Howard Dean Folds Back into the National Security Establishment
by Charles Knight

On April 9, 2003, the day that most American newspapers headlined the "liberation of Baghdad", Howard Dean, a Democratic presidential candidate notable for his opposition to Bush's war against Iraq, gave a speech in Washington which went a long way toward endorsing the Bush doctrine of preventive war.
...

[dobak]

1. I like Dean, but...

...I think that he is trying to keep up his facade as the anti-war candidate and it is slowly crumbling around him.

Dean seems to have the support of many far left voters (like myself) who have not yet realized that he is much more moderate than the media leads them to believe.

This is not criticism of Dean. I think he has tried to show his true colors, but the media keeps painting him as the "very liberal" candidate.

He seems to be trying to keep his "left" support while also trying to get people to realize that he is not as liberal as they think.

I believe that this is causing Dean alot of problems and makes him look like a flip-flopper, which he really isn't.

[annxburns]

2. I don't support Dean but ....

I don't support Dean but he has never said he was a "peacenik". In fact, didn't he come right out and say, "I told the peace-niks not to fall in love with me"? Dean is employing the classic nomination strategy - he is running to the left during the dem primaries then he will burnish his moderate creds against Bush. He is very clever about it. That's why, even though he is not my favorite, I think he will win the nomination. He is tough and he is a running a really smart campaign.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

6. Yes, he did say that

And he makes a point of noting the wars that he did support, and he limits his opposition to war to this particular war.

Personally, I would have reservations about voting for a president who would completely rule out the prospect of using force anywhere. We never know when and where we are going to need to use force. If we get attacked and the people responsible are in North Korea or Iran and their governments won't turn them in, then I would support going in the same way we went into Afghanistan when they harbored the Taliban. It is foolish to rule out using force anywhere before becoming president, because you never know when and where we will need to use it.

Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope

[teryang]

3. I really don't buy this

He never claimed to be a pacifist. He was consistently against the war in Iraq. The position described concerning N.Korea is the position of Cohen and Perry, two former Defense Secretaries. I guess people would rather have Herr Rumnitz and the Neocons, who propose the most radical and destabilizing defense policies which are harmful to our national priorties and national security.

Dean doesn't support Bush policies. The contention is ridiculous.

[many a good man]

4. A Pacifist Presidential Candidate Is Unelectable

Get real! This is the USA, the most violent country not involved in a civil war. We're a militant nation now and always have been. Especially since the National Security State kicked in. The vast majority of people (and the media and arms merchants) want a leader who is willing to kick ass when necessary. Dean must prove he is willing to use force to protect our (?) interests.

The best we can hope for is someone who can rule with common sense and use the world's greatest arsenal with temperance and wisdom. Dean has shown that he is a man of reason and restraint, unlike Junior.

There is a big difference between a policy that advocates the threat of force against proliferation versus a policy of preventive war. Its quite clear that Dean does not advocate such a position and equally clear that the author is exaggerating.

Right wingers like to rule through fear. This does not describe Dean's approach to international relations.

[DemDogs]

7. Isn't that difference just what you knock Kerry about?

"There is a big difference between a policy that advocates the threat of force against proliferation versus a policy of preventive war."

Maybe not you individually, but a lot Dean supporters here crawled all over Kerry about his description of his vote on IWR as an effort to bring the threat of force on Saddam. Is Dean saying that same thing here?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. But Dean didn't have to vote, so it is ready-made ammo for him to use

against Kerry.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

16. good point. and who will be painted as the pacifist

Dean or Kerry?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. None of the serious candidates have ruled out a preventive war

But Dean stands by his opinion that the war in Iraq was not a preventive war. Nothing inconsistent aobut those two stands.

[dajabr]

10. Good thing I bookmarked Dean's rebuttal published 3 days later...

Published on Thursday, April 17, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong
by Howard Dean

Note: After reading a recent article that called into question my opposition to the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war, I wanted to state my position clearly to set the record straight. I appreciate that the editors of Common Dreams have given me this opportunity.

When Congress approved the President’s authorization to go to war in Iraq – no matter how well-intentioned – it was giving the green light to the President to set his Doctrine of preemptive war in motion. It now appears that Iraq was just the first step. Already, the Bush Administration is apparently eyeing Syria and Iran as the next countries on its target list. The Bush Doctrine must be stopped here.

Many in Congress who voted for this resolution should have known better. On September 23, 2002, Al Gore cautioned in his speech in San Francisco that “if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.” And that is why it was such a big mistake for Congress to allow the president to set this dangerous precedent.

Too much is at stake. We have taken decades of consensus on the conduct of foreign policy – bipartisan consensus in the United States and consensus among our allies in the world community – and turned it on its head. It could well take decades to repair the damage this President and his cohort of right-wing ideological advisors have done to our standing in the international community.

Theirs is a radical view of our role in the world. The President who campaigned on a platform of a humble foreign policy has instead begun implementing a foreign policy characterized by dominance, arrogance and intimidation. The tidal wave of support and goodwill that engulfed us after the tragedy of 9/11 has dried up and been replaced by undercurrents of distrust, skepticism and hostility by many who had been among our closest allies.

This unilateral approach to foreign policy is a disaster. All of the challenges facing the United States – from winning the war on terror and containing weapons of mass destruction to building an open world economy and protecting the global environment – can only be met by working with our allies. A renegade, go-it-alone approach will be doomed to failure, because these challenges know no boundaries.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0417-07.htm

[dajabr]

11. Gee, it sure got quiet in here...

Apparently, Dean's article must have ended the discussion...

:shrug:

[genius]

12. So which time was he telling the truth about his position

And which was the campaign conversion. Ashcroft promised not to misuse his office. So should campaign coversions be believed?

[dajabr]

13. Well since he said basically the same thing on 2/17/03...

And probably on many other occasions, I'd have to go with Dean's version. I see no change in stance by dean, just a poorly written article by Mr. Knight.

The Bush Administration's policies at home and abroad are reckless and just plain wrong.

We can do better.

But better stewardship at home is not the only reason I am running for President. There is a second reason, and that is what I wanted to talk to you about today.

Our country needs to have national security policies that protect the interests of the American people. To do that, those policies must keep us safe and well defended against the myriad threats we face. But they cannot succeed unless they also reflect the kind of people we are, the values we share, the hopes we have, and the ideals that hold us together as a nation.

I am worried that many of the policies the Bush Administration is pursuing today do not provide the best means of defending our interests, and do not reflect the fundamental values of our people.

Foreign Policy Address
Drake University
February 17, 2003

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. "Now, I am not among those"

In short, America may have to go to war with Iraq, but we should not rush into war - especially without broad international support.

Now, I am not among those who say that America should never use its armed forces unilaterally. In some circumstances, we have no choice. In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred.

However, that case has not been made, and I believe we should continue the hard work of diplomacy and inspection.

We should work with the Security Council to push the UN inspection process as hard as possible, as fast as possible, and with as much help as possible from our intelligence assets. We should continue as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmament and the inspectors tell us credibly that there is promising work to be done. We should have the inspectors report back every 30 or 60 days, so that we can assess whether to continue on course or take tougher action.

If particular weapons of mass destruction are discovered, by the inspectors or otherwise, they must be destroyed immediately, by the inspectors or by the Iraqi government. If they are not, their destruction should be accomplished by military action under the UN. I believe that every member of the Security Council would support such an approach.
--Howard Dean
Foreign Policy Address
Drake University
Feb. 17 2003
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html

Dean says he supports the concept of unilateral war, and repeats that a few days later to the salon reporter. If he then changes course in April, after the invasion has happened, and says he doesn't anymore, and you want to consider that a positive, that's your right.

[dajabr]

15. Again, this is not a point of dispute...

Unless you think Dean has been claiming to be a complete pacifist? I have never seen him make that claim anywhere.