Dean Scolds Democrats on Iraq War Support

By HOLLY RAMER
Associated Press Writer

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- Presidential candidate Howard Dean, a staunch opponent of the U.S.-led war against Iraq, shrugged off the deaths of Saddam Hussein's two sons Tuesday, saying "the ends do not justify the means." He scolded Democratic rivals for backing the conflict.

"Why is it that those in Congress have waited until now to question the intelligence, to question the lack of postwar planning, to question the skyrocketing costs of this war?" Dean said. "Why were they not asking these questions and seeking the truth nine months ago, before they voted to give the president blank-check authority to go to war?"

Four of the Democratic candidates - Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts, John Edwards of North Carolina and Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri - backed the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Only Sen. Bob Graham of Florida voted against it last fall.

The former Vermont governor did not mention any of his rivals by name, but he did display an enlarged copy of the resolution and pointed out that it did not require the president to exhaust all diplomatic means before going to war - a slap at Kerry's assertion Monday that Bush circumvented portions of the resolution by failing to pursue international help.

more...http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEAN_IRAQ?SITE=PAPHQ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Geezus, I'm no Dean supporter, but his stance on this war from the onset has been perfect.

Good work Howard. Now, give me some faith in your environmental record, quit having a "death penalty w/ exception", and ---ill let you slide on the guns; you can't be perfect...

Then I may dig you better.

as his chief campaign fundraiser too.

Fucking Likudnik in disguise.

This is the second time I've heard this - is it true?

AIPAC did sponsor a trip to Israel for Dean so that he could see the situation first-hand. But they do not endorse candidates.

Nah. Leiberman certainly is, but pro-Israel does not mean taht you are a Likudnik.

But, with the exception of Kucinich, who aligns with Tikkun, they all dance to the same tune.

That's like asking the Republicans to run against the NRA.

He is going to make it a point that they will not be able to use against Bush in the election should one of them take the Democratic primary. But I do like the fact that he is pointing out things out, not afraid to stand up to the Bush administration or those that go along with them.

He is ensuring the the other candidates dislike him even more. Giving more ammunition to the Rethugs for the General. And he sure as hell won't make is past the primaries.

Shut, up Howard.

"He is ensuring the the other candidates dislike him even more. Giving more ammunition to the Rethugs for the General. And he sure as hell won't make is past the primaries."

#1: I wasn't aware that having your opponets "like you" was key to winning a primary...

#2: Dean is giving GOP-ers no such ammo, as they voted for this war in 100% lock-step. His statements condemn them more than they do the Dems...

#3: Whether Dean survives the primary remains to be seen. If he keeps callin' a spade a spade, my guess is he'll be there at the end...

if he didn't criticize the Democrats who supported the war. If he is easier on the Democrats who supported the war, then he leaves himself wide open for accusations of his attacks on Bush as being partisan. The only way he can claim the moral high ground is by criticising everyone who supported the war, Republican or Democrat.

And he was attacked for his stand against the war. It's no longer just the big, old, bad Doc Dean using attack tactics.

If he wants to stand on the steps of the White House and call out the Democrats on their Iraq vote, then I say more power to him. He was once called unelectable beacuse of that stance.

Looks like the good Doc, and the anti-war crowd, was right.

I say we all deserve to rub it in the face of the fools who ignored the calls, letters, faxes, protests, etc.

It's their own bloody fault they choose to "move on" so they could get the Iraq vote out of the way.

I don't want to 'divide' the party, but Dean's criticisms are fair. These are all questions DU'rs ask on a regular basis about our party. The fact is, if these pro-war Dems would simply stop defending their war vote and say they were misled, these criticisms would have a lot less impact. They're trying to have it both ways and they can't.

People may think Dean's criticisms are harsh, but wait till one of the nine wins the nomination. Rove's going to eat them alive if they can't handle this.

This is not a light matter that Dean is addressing. It is war! It is our nation's reputation being soiled around the world! It is our soldiers dying daily in a quagmire for oil!

The questions SHOULD have been asked BEFORE the war.

Grrrr.

Thanks for you post and perspective!

:hi:

while his main opponents voted for it. The chickens are coming home to roost and I hope Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt realize it and bow out, so we can take on Bush in full force.

Kucinich also deserves much credit in anti-Iraq war stance. If he can keep up with Dean, I would vote for him, but I don't think he can. Offer him a place in the cabinet?

because you just stated what I hope will happen.

Wouldn't Kucinich make a great sec't of labor?

:evilgrin:

for being "way out there" bec he was against the war. Not part of the mainstream, you know. Well I guess he showed them and I say rub it in their wimpy little faces now.

Don't you know there's no room for principle in this race? Now do as chimpy, me, and O'Reily tell you and shut up! Stop calling attention to our politically mostivated sell-out on this issue. We need to get on with our backroom deals. Stop cying in your teacup for crissakes, and get over it already!

More testing of which way the wind blows here: www.annointedone.dlc

What in that statement you quote from Dean isn't legit?

The part that tells the truth on people like Gephardt, I suppose... :eyes:

"Why is it that those in Congress have waited until now to question the intelligence, to question the lack of postwar planning, to question the skyrocketing costs of this war?"

Those in Congress have waited????????? WHO in Congress has waited? Robert Byrd? Russ Feingold? Bob Graham? They didn't wait!!!!!! And neither did the other 20-some Senators and 130-some Reps. who voted NO! And that includes Paul Wellstone! He's pretending that EVERYBODY voted yes!

Dean is disrespecting those who voted NO, and he should pay for that!

I think that is the thrust here.


Now explain that "arrested for lying" think. :)

I didn't know Dean was campaigning under oath. I don't see how he lied in calling those shameful Dems on their failures, but even if he did lie it would be quite amazing to see him ARRESTED for it.

But I'm sure there's something in Patriot Act II that would make arresting him ok.

"Why is it that those in Congress have waited until now to question the intelligence, to question the lack of postwar planning, to question the skyrocketing costs of this war?"

The phrase Those in congress even implies SOME and not all. Otherwise he would have said all of congress. He is calling attention to those in congress who voted yes and are NOW asking the questions, and I think it's quite clear to any native english speaker.

Don't put words in his mouth just because you don't like him.

Not Byrd and crew. He's praised Byrd's actions against the Iraq war and Bush before.

He was the first the crawl to the Rose Garden and lick Bush's ass.

Gephardt is a little, slimy, obseqious loser with no eyebrows. Dickie should resign immediately and flog himself publically.

Kerry too, but I think Dean and Kerry should duke it out first. All these guys are Bush lites. Kucinich, not included in this bunch, naturally.

Dean is not a liar.

Go Dean

I think you have sailed off the pier.



No free speach for fascists.

Bush would have been in jail a long, long time ago!

and what are we prosecuting him for again?

and someone correct me if i'm wrong, but LYING is not a crime. Lying under oath is. Lying to mislead the country into a war is. but lying isn't. is it?

LOL!!!

You have the wrong guy!!!

Yikes!

greetings from St. Paul!

:hi:

I am breathless, (honestly, LOL, really breathless, still feeling like crap) with anticipation on how this will turn out for Dean. He is intent on making the war issue the centerpiece of his campaign. I would like to hear less ego-stroking, and more of where he wants to go from here with regard to Iraq and foreign policy, and how that would differ from where the other Democrats want to go.

It's great that he wouldn't have taken us there, but he's already admitted he's not going to pull us out immediately (which is the correct position as well, IMO).

So at this point, is it all neener neener neener? Obviously he is running a campaign and seeking to draw a difference between he and the others...but he is defining himself by this issue, and it's not the only one around. And, it's not like every single Democrat was against the war. I dunno.

Why? Because 230+ US troops died, and I'm sure there will be more. Not only that but we killed over 3,000 Iraqi's. To me that is a major issue. Whether or not you support Dean or not, he's at least fighting. I don't want a mono-tone candidate that sounds like he's always reading from a speech.

One thing you've got to realize is the fact that Dean GOT his support because he was pissed. We are pissed. While Kerry, Lieberman, Gep, and Edwards voted on this war, we protested. Well we were right, they were wrong. Them being wrong wasn't just a small mistake. It was a mistake that caused the death of MANY people. To me that isn't just an issue someone should skirt. It should be the focal point because it's been the focal point of our nation for the past 3 years under Bush.

Dean is just lucky that no one thinks to point that out to him. Especially his supporters who think he's their antiwar hero.

or present evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat.

And it did not authorize regime change.

Even Kucinich says he would have supported military action if there was an imminent threat.

Bush did that. Biden-Lugar wouldn't have stopped him. The minimal requirement would be met, enough so the press was STILL on Bush's side. Bush STILL would have made a deal with Saddam to beat it out of town. He still would have had paid off the Iraqi military officers. It still would be a disaster because it was a bad military strategy all around.

Kucinich wasn't for Biden-Lugar, either.

NOT TO MENTION THAT KUCINICH WAS AGAINST THE WAR, SPOKE AT AN ANTI-WAR RALLY, AND MOBILIZED THE 160 VOTES AGAINST THIS TRAVESTY OF A BILL IN THE HOUSE.

Really responsible journalism.<heavy sarcasm>

But Dean is in the clear.



"The former Vermont governor did not mention any of his rivals by name, but he did display an enlarged copy of the resolution and pointed out that it did not require the president to exhaust all diplomatic means before going to war - a slap at Kerry's assertion Monday that Bush circumvented portions of the resolution by failing to pursue international help."

The names were there for those who wanted to see them, both who signed it and who didn't sign it.

if not, he should have. it would have been a good balance to his criticisms of the others, would have actually bolstered his position, that the others didn't have to vote for the war.

I think it's because he's not a "top-tier candidate".
Those guys aren't on his radar.

None of them. Not a single one.

It's called giving free press to your opponents.

but the paper "did bad" by NOT INFORMING POTENTIAL VOTERS THAT THEY HAVE A CHOICE OF ANTI-WAR CANDIDATES!! And one who actually DID VOTE against the war.

aaaarrrrggghhh.

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Stressed Need To Eliminate Saddam’s Weapon Capability. “Saddam Hussein has violated ... that standard on several occasions previously and by most people’s expectation, no matter what agreement we come up with, may well do so again. The greater likelihood is that we will be called on to send our ships and our troops at one point in the future back to the Middle East to stand up to the next crisis.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

“We’re going to have to make some fundamental decisions about whether to follow a policy of containment or deprive Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.” (Eric Schmitt, “U.N. Arms Inspector Who Quit Is Told He Can’t Make Policy,” The New York Times, 9/4/98)


Apparently, this Kerry character has always supported backing disarmament with force. So, although his vote wasn't out of political expedience, his sudden turn into a Dean-like dove is sheer hypocrisy.

Shame on them and way to tell them off!!!

It is time we clean house of all those vanity driven DLCrs!!!

Shame on them for this disaster!!!

Dean is right on the money- We don't need to get rid of GW Bush alone- We have to clean house on a broader scale, and send some of our lameass Democrats packing as well....

ARG!

Dean gambled big-time with his opposition to the war. If he had been wrong and if Iraq was on its way to being a paradise now, with large caches of imminent-use WMD's found, then his candidacy would be irrelevant.

But he wasn't wrong. He was right. He's entitled to use that against his opponents. In running for the nomination, his goal is to win it.

Now, I think there is a point where one can go over the line, but I don't believe this is that point yet.

I'd expect the Iraq Resolution voters to strut a bit if the war and reconstruction went perfectly.

Dean gambled and it looks like he won. He's entitled (as is Kucinich, Sharpton, Mosley and Graham) to crow a bit for standing against the pro-war machine.

You know something is obviously wrong when the truth becomes "divisive" and conversely, lies become acceptable.

Look at the facts:

250 - 300 American troops dead, many more with mysterious health conditions afflicting them as the days pass. Look at how well-cared for the 1st Gulf vets were when they arrived home with Gulf War syndrome.

10,000 Iraqis, women, men, kids dead.

Excuse me, liberated.

George Bush - who has never stepped foot on the soil for which he had no problem issuing Shock and Awe and in addition, having the utter audacity to issue that ever presidential command BRING IT ON....is back on safe soil.

Mission Accomplished?

Yes, if you consider oil wells for all the oil companies are secured.

No, if you're an American soldier.

Look at Baghdad - in ruins, utter anarchy, paralysis, decay, a nation in fury and outrage, and most Americans dont even understand why......defies imagination...

but amidst this unbelievable turmoil and tragedy, guess what just keeps on pumping .......

THAT SWEET IRAQI OIL......guess who will profit? Not you and I..

more importantly, not the Iraqis for whom this oil BELONGS.

Have you figured out yet whos paying for all this?

Neither have I except there are only two answers. Either the Iraqis who might be footing the tab with their own oil, or you and I friends, compliments of Uncle Sam. Guess whos getting rich? That would not be us or the Iraqis. I bet you can figure out that one too.

Looks like we bombed their country and left the nation of Iraq in economic and emotional shambles, with virtually nothing left

put our soldiers in harms way in the process all so a rich few could take over their oil wells, which of course is a MAJOR source of all the polution and global warming ocurring on our planet today.

So I guess then, this would make those of you proud of these Senators who

WROTE GEORGE AND DICK A BLANK CHECK USING OUR TAX DOLLARS FOR THIS INCREDIBLY EVIL AND ILLEGAL WAR AND TO MAKE GEORGE AND DICK RICHER ON OIL THAT DOESNT BELONG TO THEM?

Im sorry, what was it you mentioned about Howard Dean being divisive in confronting our Senators on this choice?

He is trying to undermine his rivals. He's welcome to do it, but don't expect me to cheer him on.

Helps when the truth is on your side.

It divides those who perceive and understand a situation from those who do not. Of course, that's why many politicians prefer to avoid it.

Welcome to the 700 club, by the way.

Bush is on the wrong side.

Anyone else that stood in support of Bush's invasion of Iraq is on the wrong side.

The ones on the right side are the Iraqi people! They didn't want to see their country being invaded by America, and they sure want America out of their country now.

The ones on the right side were our real allies, the Germans and the French, who tried their best to keep us from violating the UN Charter by attacking Iraq.

The ones on the right side were the millions of people across the world that demonstrated for peace and tried to stop American aggression.

The ones on the right side were world religious and humanistic leaders, from the Pope, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and Nelson Mandela (to name a few) that tried to appeal to the world's conscience in order to prevent the loss of life in Iraq.

The ones on the right side were those members of Congress that voted against the Iraq war resolution, including Presidential candidates Bob Graham and Dennis Kucinich.

The ones on the right side were the other Presidential candidates that opposed the war when it was considered un-American and un-patriotic to do so.

Candidate bashing is silly and wasteful.

Why can't he just promote himself without trying to tear the other guys down? He's a pretty arrogent, high-handed little jerk. Sorry, but I really needed to get that off my chest.

So much energy attacking other Dems - one who may be the party's nominee.
Why not take it to *?

But it is going to happen.

Remember when Poppy critcized Raygun for his "voodoo" economics when he was running against him?

Guess who Raygun makes his VP? Poppy. It's all politics.

You know. Where you run against your opponents, trying to win.

Yeah, I think they should all have press conferences saying how great the other candidates are. A virtual love-fest.

Sheesh.

Wait until one of them wins the primaries. Then He'll focus on Bush*

I don't care who does it. It's expected and it always happens, but I don't have to like it.

Nothing but truth here.

http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000743.html#more

Kerry, when given an oppoturnit to bash Dean or hit back at Dean, by CNNs Judy Woodruff, declined, saying "thats just politics"....prefering to focus on Bush.


It sure would be nice if Dean did the same thing...focus on Bush, not his fellow Democrats.

nt

After all he is endorsement by one of my favorite men or at least a member of my favorite family, Teddy Kennedy.

Yeah, his wife has $650M, sort of an upper class act. I prefer class acts that result in upholding principles, such as defined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Did Kerry vote for the Patriot act?

Kerry keeps his hands "clean" while his staff does the dirty work of hacking away at Dean. Let's not pretend that the Kerry campaign is blameless here, or in any way innocent. You watch as things progress. Dean is an increasingly serious threat to Kerry -- and for good reason -- Kerry won't take that laying down. He hasn't so far, and he will be even less likely to in the future.

Kerry's no saint.

Eloriel

is using a strategy that employs "co-opt, contrast and contain". The intent is to steal Dean's hallmark style, much like Bush did with McCain, enforce and flood all outlets with an image of Dean as "unelectable" and define him as a "fringe leftist".

A real class act.

He uses the same tactics that Bush used against McCain, one of which was to investigate whether Dean and his wife ever performed abortions during their medical practice.

Kerry will not withdraw the troops from Iraq, and he will pursue a low-key version of Bush's imperialist policies.

Looks a certain way, behaves in another way.

Dean is much more straightforward. Things arent vague with Dean, things seem to be vague and inconsistent with Kerry.

More than anything, the energy is lackluster with Kerry, which makes me conclude that much of it is pretty inauthentic.

And one way to do that is to attack the democrats who support Bush. This is the key problem with the democratic party today. They SUPORT the opposition!

I think that the DLC has clearly shown that Dean must run against both Bush AND the puppetmasters of the democratic party (such as it is).

1. He's been tearing shrub a new one practically since he declared - want some links? Or, are you just ignoring facts?

2. He can run a Primary Campaign

He's been doing both very well.

views - and the war is quite important. So, good for Dean! Earlier today I read a similarly good Kuchinich article - good for him too! I will register every thing that the candidates say FOR ME. I do not understand the bad feelings here - unless they come from people who wanted the war. And, yeah, a primary has to be a contest.

Thank you Governor Dean for realizing what the right-wing is all about. To them, the ends do justify the means. They practice a selective morality. The classic example is Oliver North, who admitted that lying to congress was justified because of a "more important goal."

I'm glad there is at least one candidate with a sense of right and wrong.

He tells us the weapons will be found, and once the weapons are found, it shouldn't matter what was said. What sort of a moron is he?

And Dean is right.

it probably makes sense to the moderate Republicans out there. Think about this one there is a certain psychology that we can gain with these people who might swing because of their dissastifaction with *. I am still voting for this guy because he stood his ground and he has the highest probablity for winning. I will vote for whoever makes it out of the primaries so it is important that we get people out to vote.

My husband and I have both switched to Dean....he did the right thing with the "war" and he's shown leadership and toughness. We need someone tough against this ruthless bunch in power!

:dem:

Isn't he in congress too? Did he vote for war?

The only shot he had at winning the nomination was on the anti-war issue, and Dean has stolen his thunder on that.