And support for the U.S. position at the Iran talks is not a litmus test for either Democrats or liberals.

He's losing whatever credibility he has at this point by siding with the the right on major issues where he should be on the side of Democrats, like all those who want the Big Banks regulated eg.

And peace rather than War.

'losing whatever credibility he has at this point by siding with the the right on major issues ...'

He's been known to shoot off at the mouth in the past, I believe.

Which killed off any respect I ever had for Howard Dean.

maybe he should talk to the other participants, as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141055267

Iran nuclear negotiators have reached broad understanding, says UK

Having a 'broad understanding' is about as vague as you can make it.

such as Iraq, which as we know, never was a threat to this country.

Sad to see Dean jump on that band wagon AND on the Wall St Banks band wagon telling Warren to 'tone down' her statements on Wall St corruption.

He was against any diplomacy from close to the time it started. This is NOT a new position for Dean - he was against diplomacy with Iran ago as January 2014. I hate linking to Common Dreams, but it has the clearest article. http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/01/30/howard-dean-takes-hawkish-stance-against-diplomacy-iran

I never got Dean's advocacy for MEK.

With Wall Street etc, I think that Dean was never a progressive. His family name is part of a Wall Street firm -- and no, it is not just a coincidence. It was strange in 2004, that no one got that he grew up wealthier than John Kerry. He did, however, dislike working on Wall Street enough to return to school to become a doctor.

(I was disappointed in Dean when this was announced. He was great on the "50 State Strategy"...on Foreign Affairs...he's hawkish. It seems they all have their hands in the till these days, sadly.)

-----------

Mujahideen-e Khalq: Former U.S. Officials Make Millions Advocating For Terrorist Organization

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/08/mek-lobbying_n_913233.html

WASHINGTON -- The ornate ballroom of the Willard Hotel buzzed with activity on a Saturday morning in July. Crowded together on the stage sat a cadre of the nation's most influential former government officials, the kind whose names often appear in boldface, who've risen above daily politics to the realm of elder statesmen. They were perched, as they so often are, below a banner with a benign conference title on it, about to offer words of pricey wisdom to an audience with an agenda.

That agenda: to secure the removal of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) from the U.S. government's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. A Marxian Iranian exile group with cult-like qualities, Mujahideen-e Khalq was responsible for the killing of six Americans in Iran in the 1970s, along with staging a handful of bombings. But for a terrorist organization with deep pockets, it appears there's always hope.

Onstage next to former FBI director Louis Freeh sat Ed Rendell, the former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania and current MSNBC talking head; former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean; former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton; former Secretary of Veterans Affairs Togo West; former State Department Director of Policy Planning Mitchell Reiss; former Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James T. Conway; Anita McBride, the former chief of staff to First Lady Laura Bush; and Sarah Sewall, a Harvard professor who sits on a corporate board with Reiss.

All told, at least 33 high-ranking former U.S. officials have given speeches to MEK-friendly audiences since December of last year as part of more than 22 events in Washington, Brussels, London, Paris and Berlin. While not every speaker accepted payment, MEK-affiliated groups have spent millions of dollars on speaking fees, according to interviews with the former officials, organizers and attendees.

---------------
From 1980-'88, a militant wing of the MEK supported Saddam Hussein in his war against their former countrymen, a conflict which resulted in massive casualties on both sides -- further fueled by U.S. financial support for Iraq. As a result of their actions in the war, the group is reviled today within Iran by major segments of the pro-democracy Green Movement and by those loyal to the ayatollahs. In post-Saddam Iraq, the MEK is best known for having allegedly carried out attacks on Kurds and Shiite Iraqis during the early 1990s, under orders from Hussein. MEK supporters deny that the group participated in either of the conflicts. If the alliance with Saddam in the 1980s helped to keep them on the U.S.'s good side throughout the decade, that changed in the 1990s. In 1996, Congress created the Foreign Terrorist Organization List as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and when it went into effect in 1997, the MEK was one of the first groups placed on the list.

Following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the MEK agreed to give up its weapons arsenal in exchange for protection from the U.S. military. But following a review in 2007, the U.S. State Department maintained the organization’s classification as a Foreign Terrorist Organization when it ruled the group still possessed the "capacity and will" to commit terrorist acts.

Throughout all this, the MEK has been led by the same two charismatic figures: Maryam Rajavi and her husband, Massoud Rajavi. Mrs. Rajavi is based in Paris, where she leads an Iranian shadow-government known as the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI). Massoud Rajavi's whereabouts are unknown. Members have long argued that the NCRI is a separate organization from the MEK, but an extensive FBI investigation concluded in 2004 that the NCRI is "not a separate organization, but is instead, and has been, an integral part of the MEK."

As part of its advocacy, the NCRI offers itself as the viable alternative to the current regime, and a democratic opposition. But U.S. officials don’t see it that way. “We do not view the MEK as a viable opposition movement for Iran,” a senior government official with knowledge of the issue told The Huffington Post. “Its own structure is not democratic, so how can the Iranian people expect it to enact democratic change within the country? There is a viable democratic movement afoot in Iran, and the world saw that in 2009.”

The question of the MEK's structure arouses intense debate. Independent reports from Human Rights Watch and from the RAND Corporation have cataloged the group's cult practices at Camp Ashraf, which according to RAND, include "a near-religious devotion to the Rajavis ... public self-deprecation sessions, mandatory divorce, celibacy, enforced separation from family and friends and gender segregation." MEK members and supporters deny that the group is a cult, and they dismiss the reports as propaganda by the Iranian regime.

See, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm

That seminal document authored by leading American neoconservatives led by Richard Perle called for serial regime change across the MENA region, in Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq and finally Iran. Even more eye-opening is its frank admission that the real agenda is the creation of a Right-wing Israel that is free to expand its influence over the region without interference from the United States. To do that, Israel needs to realign itself politically with U.S. leadership, or to rearrange it such as it was. That is ultimately the meaning of a Clean Break - a break from constraining influences in the U.S.

PNAC neocon doctrine has become the basis for mainstream AIPAC demands, now being expressed by figures many Democrats previously believed to be progressive, such as Howard Dean and powerful party centrists, including Hillary Clinton and Sen. Chuck Schumer. The traditional framework of alliances and compromises that also constrained U.S. policy is undergoing a shift and realignment, pushed mostly to the Right by the vast power over Congress exercised by AIPAC, and the more insidious influence of Saudi money.

Congratulations, PNAC, Bibi, Hillary, Howard, Chuck and Salman. You have gotten largely everything you sought. Read the roadmap if you want to understand what is happening today and where they're taking us, and pass it along.

and it just came out that their friends the North Koreans are helping them hide their nuclear weapon program.

http://www.thetower.org/1830-lausanne-dispatch-secret-facilities-in-nk-syria-a-possible-new-issue-in-iran-nuke-talks/

This is shaping up to tear the Democratic Party apart, and far worse if a diplomatic solution is scuttled. Thanks Bibi for all your help to Boehner.

Irresponsible and imprudent.

he'd be dandy presidential material.

pretty scattered, all over the board on a lot of issues. Sometimes you don't know where he is coming from

Irresponsible and imprudent for sure.

That helped with the base in 2004, as he could shift from a somewhat hawkish position in 2002 on Iraq to having Trippi calling him the only serious antiwar candidate. But, since then, when he has spoken out on foreign policy, it has been different than many would have expected.

People forget that in 2006, when Kerry and Feingold had their proposal, Dean favored the longer involvement recommended by Lawrence Korb, from the Reagan administration to Kerry/Feingold. Not to mention, on Iran,this is NOT a new position for Dean - he was against diplomacy with Iran as long ago as January 2014. I hate linking to CommonDreams, but it has the clearest article. http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/01/30/howard-dean-takes-hawkish-stance-against-diplomacy-iran

At this point, if there is going to be a deal it likely will come in the next few weeks. It is ridiculous that some are making the case that like in Cinderella, at the stroke of midnight when there was no agreement, the hotel should have turned into a pumpkin and everything ended. It would have been idiotic to go with whatever they could get at that point - and then have more undefined areas. EVERY country has said at some point that they are close. Peace might be worth the world waiting a few more days - or even weeks.

Not to mention, most, including Howard Dean, who make statements on the possible deal - are basing them on vague comments by people involved and analysis by those who know very little about the deal -- and very little about nuclear technology -- who have vested interests.

The team that Obama has there is not just John Kerry, but a former MIT professor of nuclear physics, who is the energy secretary. If there is a deal, Obama, Kerry and the other countries will have had this expert's opinion. I seriously doubt that they would agree if he has serious reservations.

Consider the people we have heard from against it - starting with Netanyahu, who half the Congress is quoting. Yet, he completely misunderstood where Iran was years ago - when he was shrieking about it at the UN:

On it, he and Lugar sponsored Obama/Lugar which was the followup bill to Nunn/Lugar that dealt with eliminating nuclear material.

Not to mention, that does not give Dean more foreign policy experience. Other than the argument of who makes the best maple syrup, I don't think there were many disputes.

Kerry has been pouring his energy and his formidable diplomatic skills into this, as has Moniz, whose professional expertise IS nuclear physics and who has shown good diplomatic instincts himself (knowing that his Iranian counterpart was himself trained at MIT, he sent him baby clothes with the MIT logo for the Iranian's new grandson)

This is a team in whom I have the greatest confidence. In fact, I couldn't think of a better team to handle this.

It infuriates me to have morning-morning quarterbacks like Schumer and Dean and Menendez (not to mention the @#$% Republicans)gumming up the works . NONE of these guys possess even a shred of the diplomatic skills or scientific credentials necessary to handle this very complicated problem, not to mention that none of them are THERE at the negotiating table, so it's a given that they can't possibly know exactly what's going on

Howard Dean backs Obama on Syria (video)

http://thehill.com/policy/international/320183-howard-dean-backs-syria-strike


By Julian Pecquet - 09/04/13 02:00 PM EDT

Former DNC chairman Howard Dean supports President Obama's call for a punitive military strike against Syria.

“Thus far I fully support the president, including his going to Congress,” Dean said in an email to The Hill.

The comments from the standard-bearer of the anti-war left during the 2004 campaign could help Obama gain more support among Democrats for votes next week in the House and Senate on his request.

In the House in particular, Obama is likely to have to count on a strong Democratic vote.
Dean's support for punishing Bashar Assad's regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons is particularly noteworthy because the former Vermont governor was the most prominent Iraq war critic during the run-up to the 2003 invasion.

“What I want to know,” Dean said in his opening line at the California State Democratic Convention in March 2003, “is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the president's unilateral intervention in Iraq?”

Dean recently visited Iowa, sparking speculation that he may try another run for president in 2016 after briefly being the apparent front-runner in 2004.

More and more potential candidates are staking their ground on what to do in Syria.

Hillary Clinton, whose vote on Iraq may have cost her the 2008 election, broke her days-long silence Tuesday evening by coming out in support of the strikes while Tea Party favorites Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) are taking the lead in rejecting any U.S. entanglement in Syria.

Him getting credit for the 2006 and 2008 elections is like a rooster getting credit for the sunrise.

however, in fairness, the 2006 and to some degree 2008 50 state strategy was effective.

republicans have been throwing water on a deal that they have no idea about.

It is really getting tiresome listening to these idiots who have offered NOTHING but criticism.

What this administration has accomplished, in spite of all the attacks, is nothing short of amazing.

Sorry to disappoint the war lovers, but there will be an agreement. What the U.S. has done to Iran and Iraq is nothing short of criminal, and these pompous asses want to continue the policy of manifest destiny.

We overthrew the Democratically elected government of Iran in 1953, and installed the Shah, which was a direct cause of the religious take over there.

We encouraged fighting between Iraq and Iran where millions were killed

We lied both times when we invaded Iraq, and the second invasion caused an entire destabilization of the middle east

I think we have more than enough evidence that the critics who don't want a deal with Iran have shown, not only that their ideas have been a total failure, but that they, and by proxy us, are responsible for the deaths of millions.

contractor buddies).

Anyone who is not standing behind the president in the effort to use diplomacy rather than military action with Iran, has some vested interest in forever war. And it isn't in the interests of the American people who have gained NOTHING but more enemies, from these disastrous policies. And a huge bill.

Iran has dispersed elements of its nuclear program to North Korea, introducing redundancy into its nuclear infrastructure that will undermine the usefulness of any deal, according to recently published articles by a range of journalists and policy analysts.

Gordon Chang of The Daily Beast highlighted the likelihood that Iran is actively conducting nuclear work on North Korean soil, and specifically working to develop and nuclear weapons. He noted that the dynamic, if confirmed, would gut the effectiveness of any nuclear deal: “Inspections inside the borders of Iran will not give the international community the assurance it needs…. while the international community inspects Iranian facilities pursuant to a framework deal, the Iranians could be busy assembling the components for a bomb elsewhere.”

The concerns would be compounded if it turns out, as The Wall Street Journal reported last Wednesday, that the P5+1 will allow Iran to put off making a full disclosure of its activity to the International Atomic Energy Agency until after sanctions relief has been granted, preventing inspectors from having a view of Iran’s activities even on their own soil. “[T]here is no point in signing a deal with just one arm of a multi-nation weapons effort. That’s why the P5+1 needs to know what is going on at that isolated military base in the mountains of North Korea,” Chang concluded.

http://www.thetower.org/1830-lausanne-dispatch-secret-facilities-in-nk-syria-a-possible-new-issue-in-iran-nuke-talks/

The P5+1 are getting punked by Iran.

no matter how long it takes. Talk forever, what's wrong with that? Why this impatience for war?

&quot something to the effect of) The U.S really doesn't need a deal ... (and I think I heard) ... the US really doesn't have a dog in this fight."

No Dean, but the WORLD world be a slightly better place and "WWIII Avoidance" is a pretty big dog.

When I came back into the room, and he was still talking, I turned to the Golf Channel.

But what amazes me is, the folks that have been wrong about every damned thing foreign policy wise, keep getting to guess! Thank the Universe they are no where near the seat of power, because when there ... you don't get a, "Oops, I thought ..." without a bunch of folks dying.

... just shut the fuck UP! What a disappointment you turned out to be.

The US and its partners could agree to halt the UN sanctions. Consequentially, it's not a big deal. The UN sanctions aren't going to make or break the Iranian economy. But negotiation wise, it allows the Iranian government to claim a big victory. And the UN would probably go along, especially since 5 Security Council members, including Russia and China, are in the negotiations.

This would allow the Iranians to claim a moral victory, even while they agree to unprecedented inspection terms.