Okay..came on board for Dean: Dean says: "Bush should have looked at Syria

& Iran before going into Iraq."

I heard this in my ears in last night's debate......I said to myself....I didn't hear what I thought I heard.......then later on Dean says "Syria and Iran" again.

Now.......My problem is this: I have an "Anti-Iraq Invasion" sign out in my garage (retired) which says

Bush Invades Iraq! What Next....Syria and Iran?????

If I hadn't heard the words "Syria and Iran" out of Dean's mouth.....I wouldn't have posted to ask

WHY!!!!!!! What is Dean talking about.......we should have looked at.....dealt with ......Syria and Iran

Was this a Campaign strategy to counteract Lieberman?

He has almost lost me with this comment twice........I hope that some "Deanies" can explain what the heck that was? I waited until tonight.......because I thought someone else would have picked up on it and posted here...Since no one else did.......here I am!

I cannot vote for Dean if he wants to or thinks about Syria and Iran being targets for expanding this Invasion. I won't do it. :nuke:

that would be WWIII to me........

he is saying that if bush* really cared about stopping terrorism, Syria and Iran are the 2 countries that he should have dealt with, diplomatically not militarily.

That is my take on what he meant. IMHO

agree! But, I thank you for giving me the quote "my ears didn't want to hear."

I do not want to hear about Syria and Iran.....because to me that puts us into a war defending Israel.

Syria is Israel's biggest threat and the regime from whose downfall Israel could conquer the most. Dean was trying to court the Jewish vote which will probably more likely to vote for Bush than him now. I doubt that he would ever even think of international bullying. It's just a campaign trick. Calm down.

Israel vote........that's what I thought......Handlers got word that "Holy Joe" was going to come out strong about I/P and so they coached him to go back at Lieberman.

I can't vote for a candidate like that. Lieberman would have been gone because of his own weaknesses......He didn't need to be Knocked out by Dean.

If Dean and handlers are into pacifying Isreal....and what's going on there.....then I'm out of here.

I will not support Dean......what next will he pander to? What next will he give up...or was he always in favor of invading Iran and Syria to get rid of all Israel's threats.......???????

do you get that Dean wanted to INVADE anyone? Diplomacy isn't invading. Seriously, you are taking things to the extreme, both in your perception of what Dean said, and your reaction. Dean is the same guy he was a week ago when you made a big decision to support him. I'm hoping you chose him because you believe he is a good person who looks at facts before he makes any decisions. I'm hoping you believe he is a guy who, when presented with new compelling evidence doesn't let his ego get in the way of changing his decision. I'm hoping you believe that Dean isn't some war monger who wants to create disruption in the Middle East. I'm hoping you chose Dean because you have seen him make difficult decisions, and were either comfortable with those decisions or comfortable at the route he took to make the decision.

Dean's the same guy you liked a week ago.

If you think *any* candidate is going to agree with you on everything, your going to be disappointed in every election unless you are the candidate. And even then you'll be disapointed since you can only run for one office.

Also, I know for a fact that your pulling his words out of context. And, I am absolutely positive that he's not going to be invading and occupying Syria or Iran as President.

A campaign trick? Aren't you clever...The reason that Dean said that Syria and Iran were bigger threats than Iraq is because it's TRUE!

Syria is a terrorist breeding ground and Iran is miles ahead of where Iraq ever was when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Welcome to DU...maybe.

;-)

It's hysterical nonsense. A few groups that we identify as "terrorists" have press offices there. That's it.

with these countries -- i got that he was interested in leaning on the exact problem individuals -- rather than taking the civilization destroying, dead innocent bystander approach the commander in thief has done.
but then again -- i'm just fine with dean and kerry and gephardt and sharpton and edwards and braun and kucinich .. i'm just not ok with lieberman.

Darn he's got a nasty habit of doing that. Starting to remind me of someone we all know when he has to think on his feet...

I wouldn't watch it last night because it was on Fox. The simple thing is to find and post a transcript and let's see what his actual words were.

Before someone suggests it, I don't really care to find a transcript because I don't care what Dean said. I've eliminated Dean from consideration because he scares me with his shooting from the hip then thinking about it later.

The Bushit admin has been using the imaginary 911/al-queda link to justify the Iraq debacle, and Dean is pointing out the absurdity of it.

Dean will be a crisp president. Making interventionist decisions like this, if they happen to become urgent, should be based on evidence and implemented in a cooperative manner, regardless of ideology.

Iraq was not.

until I have HONEST proof that they are involved in terrorism agains the US.......And, since we went into Iraq based on "false" proof.......I will not believe that anyone would start hokeying up more stuff to expand this war! And, that a Dem candidate that I took a long time to commit to would do this......before the PRIMARIES, FGS would start to do this is just too much for me.....I am totally ANTI IRAQ INVASION...........I thought Dean was, also......... I feel betrayed.

:pals:

Come'on, we all know Dean isn't going to invade every nation on earth.

Thanks for the hugs......not in a "hugging" mood about this....It's a principle with me..

Trippi, who is there, your self what Dean meant in the debate last night.

http://www.evote.com/chat_section/chatindex.asp

asking why Dean has said we should have looked at Iran and Syria before going into Iraq. I posted where I thought my question should go...and there were three little icons. I kept hitting them all and nothing said enter...but then my number popped up and then disappeared.

Trippi started to answer a ME question......and I thought I was next. Anyway he said he would bring Bill Clinton in to go the the ME to try to start negotiations between the Israeli's and Palestinians. He said that Iran was a threat to Iraq because of the Shi'ites. He didn't didn't get to my question before the time out or he did get my question and felt that answer was appropriate.

when he says that Iraq had no al-queda and Syria and Iran are harboring terrorists? Hebollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas come to mind.

handle it.........with bombs or diplomacy......and since were are already in Iraq......what's a little hop and skip over the boarder to blow their brains out? Makes sense......right......clean up the Middle East.....we are there and it costs less than having to go back.......

I see that as the "next step." Once the US is in a country it's very hard to get us out....and the temptation to expand becomes an ego trip for whatever next president comes into office. It's happened before in our history...I don't want it to happen again.

..and you are going to see more of it, as predicted by a talking head here and there. Anti-war got his base all whooped up; but Howard is preparing to play to the big crowds. I'll bet if Howard gets to go to the big dance, Howard suddenly becomes someone who thinks we need to whip a little Syria and Iran ass----as in, I wasn't totally against war. I supported Afghanistan war. And I just thought there were targets who made more sense. And then all his supporters, will say, "gosh, yes, he's so cool and smart and why didn't we think of it and let's go blow up those goddamn other raghead".....I've been down this trail too many times. It was what got me, an enthusiastic kid, so pumped up that Barry Goldwater was a Choice, Not an Echo (or was it Voice...can't remember).

The anti-Dean people are fucked up. He is a Marxist, and a corporate thug. He is Sharon's bitch, but wants to destroy Israel. He's soft on defense, but wants to invade every country on earth. Give me a fucking break.

Pulling the inspectors out of Iraq in exchange for an invasion was a stupid thing to do, and everyone knows it.

This does not obviate future duties to fight terrorists, weapons proliferation, and ethnic cleansing when necessary. If Dean wanted to surrender America to Islamic fundamentalists I would not support him.

Could the anti-Deans please have a meeting and get some sort of handle on all your attacks? Have some refreshments (or better yet, drinks), appoint a chairman, get a plan. You guys are all over the place.:crazy:

and so, I can't really take your comment seriously as an answer to my question about Dean.

Edited: typo's

and start looking tough to please the general population if he gets the nomination. He will stress how he supported the Afghanistan war, etc. in a effort to say, "see, silly billys, I can fight a war with the best of them". I've seen way too much real swings in this guys positions and they aren't just a slipped word here or there. He's slick and he won't be yacking what he's yacking now to the general public. His minions can't raise poop compared to the $300 million plus Bush will have so he needs the big money. Union money, etc. isn't going to go for this "anti war" stuff. And when you have these congresspeople scared that Howard will lead the ticket and bring them all down, I think it says something---they are old political hacks and know what eventually plays in Peoria and what doesn't. So Howard is going to have to broaden his message and I'm 100% sure that his supporters will agree even if he does a complete about face on every issue in the book. He knows that. He knows they will come along for the ride, so he can "broaden" out and get some more aboard by changing his positions. Howard is smart. He knows his appeal in it's present form is limited on the big stage. Howard will "expand" and Bush will paint him with an even bigger brush than they painted Gore for changing his mind on issues (and I don't remember Gore ever changing as much as I've seen Dean in just this short time.)

Ergo, your argument falls on its face.

going to vote for Wesley Clark a General (beware the Military-Industrial Complex) for President.

Now, I might think about him.....think.......for VP.....he's certainly running hard like one of those folks in Hollywood who campaign with billboards for the Ocar Nomination but say "oh.....I'm really not campaigning....it's those who love me who are doing this on my behalf) so.........you have to understand I was totally agains the Invasion & Occupation of Iraq.....there is no way I'm going to suppor any vague "whiff" of PNAC stench!

So, if Dean waffles on this........I'm outta there as a supporter.........I will keep looking.. Yeah....it's important to me!

Comparing Dean to Goldwater, now that is a leap. You were wrong then and your wrong now.

Dean needs to to play the middle ground now that he is entering the big boys' race. Candidates always try to find a base first. then they try to expand that base with "moderate" bullshit statements. Don't let what Dean will be saying for the next year put you off. He's trying to appeal to the idiot crowd. You know, the dudes who watch Fox News, hate France, and want to "liberate" the world.

Let's see, you've already accused Dean of campaign tricks and bullshit statements, now you're telling us that he's only trying to appeal to your peers?

of why the whole world hates us? That there's a reason why terrorism brews, and it has something to do with the way this country exploits the world?

I didn't think so.

He said, if the president was concerned with terrorism he should have looked at syria and iran. He is speaking to his critics, NOT saying we should invade syria and iran...

Kucinich or Sharpton or Moseley-Braun?

Cause those are your candidates if you don't like that statement (I don't know what Clark says on this issue).

I'm no fan of Dean, but don't you think they *are* supporting terrorists if even he says so? Hasn't that been general knowledge? I'm fairly certain that all the Democrats will try to get the terrorists out so we aren't invading and PNAC'ing our way through the Mideast.

Labels D & R no longer mean anything... I posted several threads in the past where Dems were pushing this right along with the Republicans. IMO, the war on Yugoslavia was step 1 of the PNAC plan.

I'm sticking to Kucinich on this because he's denounced the whole thing from the beginning. The War on Terrorism is as bogus as all the other wars we've declared on nouns. We create and court the terror ourselves just as Israel does.

Department of Peace...

DARE TO DREAM

IMAGINE!

Howard Dean: Sharon's Man?

(Excerpt)

And in a telling statement about whether a President Dean would act any differently toward Iran than the Bush neocons, Dean also told The Forward, "The United States has to ... take a much harder line on Iran and Saudi Arabia because they're funding terrorism."


In fact, Dean thinks President Bush is way too soft on Iran. In a March appearance on CBS' “Face the Nation,” Dean explained that " is beholden to the Saudis and the Iranians," something that would certainly come as a surprise to the current regime leaders in Iran who've been labeled as part of an alleged "Axis of Evil" by the current U.S. president. Dean even left open the possibility of preemptive strikes against that country in that interview, adding that "we have to be very, very careful of Iran."


Once again, sounding very much like President Bush, Dean charged during a New Hampshire campaign stop this month that Iran (along with Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Libya) was "funding Palestinian terrorists and fueling terrorism throughout the world."


Apparently, there is another side to this "anti-war" candidate. When combined with his dubious record as governor on issues like welfare "reform" and gun control, it may be prudent for progressives to think twice before casting their vote for Howard Dean.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16280

I've heard him say it......need to do more research.....:-)'s

with out one shot being fired because people wanted to 'be like americans'... He went on to say that America used to inspire not intimidate. He said that Bush's policy of bullying people is doing us a dis-service, and creating more danger from terrorists and adding enemies around the world...

Did you or others hear them words koko01?

expanding Iraq into Syria and Iran......is not hopeful, promising or upbeat. I thought he was for diplomacy, mreaching out to our former allies for support, getting the "meaness" out of America.

You can't do that and be "Occupying the Middle East!" It just doesn't work that way...:-(

amongst the Democrats, and that is Kucinich.

If you want a total Mideast makeover, you have one choice and that is Lieberman.

If you want a candidate that has shown agreement by acceptance of the Bush premptive war policy, you have three candidates to choose from, Edwards, Gephardt or Kerry.

If you want a candidate that believes in defending the country, but also believes that war should only be of necessity, then you have four choices, Dean, Graham, Mosely-Braun or Sharpton.

If war is your only issue then you will probably find comfort in one of the zones that I listed.

I support Dean and agree with your appraisal. Dean's a 'realist' not 'dreamer.'

unfrigginreal wins the prize!

has a sense of history....a grounding in history.....

I don't want someone who panders........I want conviction that comes from a core of belief......

Your assessment is good........I will rethink my position.......

but there's never been a "fake anti-war candidate." As far as I know, Dennis has always been the ONLY anti-war candidate, regardless of the tripe that the mainstream media spews.

campaign manager.......

I'm not comfortable with Trippi's reply that he would bring in Bill Clinton. I think Bush should have brought in Bill Clinton.......but I don't think Dean's campaign manager should be relying on Clinton to come in and solve the ME.....I think it showed that Dean hadn't thought out his position and would rely on others. Bothers me......

If you do it's a pretty safe bet that Dean isn't your guy.

n/t

We should have just kept looking at Iraq too, would have figured out no WMD's there after a while. And it wouldn't cost us 150 billion per year either.

"Look at" could mean negotiate with, put pressure on, use diplomatic means, use inspectors, use the UN. All the things we should be doing.

DEAN: Yes, we have to be very, very careful of Iran. One of my criticisms with this president is that because we have no oil policy of any kind here, other than drilling the national parks, he is beholden to the Saudis and the Iranians.

The Saudis and the Iranians and the Syrians are funding most of the terror in the Middle East, and this president has not been willing to confront that, partly because we have no oil policy.

Absolutely, Iran is a very serious danger.

PRIEST: So, again, you could consider preemptive strikes against the Iranian nuclear program?

DEAN: Look, you never rule in or out anything. But when America is threatened imminently with a -- by a foreign power, then we have a right to defend ourselves.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/03/ftn/printable542530.shtml

Dean always cleverly avoids answering direct questions.


Dean's notion about the causes of anti-US belligerence echoes that of the current administration. He has gone on record saying as much: "I think our freedom is what they find so threatening, our freedom and the power that I think results from that freedom." This analysis can not honestly address the real issues behind the antagonism the United States currently incurs, and will consequently require ever greater military funding to handle the global consequences. Sounding very much like Bush, Dean has charged that Iran (along with Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Libya) are "funding Palestinian terrorists and fueling terrorism throughout the world." Do we need four more years of this?



When it comes to Israel and Palestine, Dean thinks the US should become more involved, but beyond that have no fundamental objections to the Bush administration policies in the region. He calls for an end to Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians, but not for a cessation of Israeli violence against Palestinian, nor an end to the Israeli occupation. He ignores Israeli defiance of UN Security Council resolutions and the Geneva Accords, and has been silent concerning withdrawal from Israel's illegal settlements in the occupied territories or even concerning a freeze on the new construction. His appointment of Steven Grossman, a former head of the pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC and ex-chairman of the DNC, to a top campaign fundraising post reflects his Zionist stance.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/Bister-Estrin-Jacobs_Dean.htm

I don't remember any mention of Syria

?