Can't Howard Dean Speak For Himself?

Is Howard Dean incapable of speaking and writing for himself?

No.

He can read.

He can speak.

He can write.

He has read the letters he received from Dennis Kucinich and Tom Hayden.

I'm sure Howard Dean has not requested help nor does he need it from posters on DU.

Several DU posters are doing their best to respond to the Kucinich and Hayden letters. Perhaps they could lighten their burden by writing to Howard Dean and urging him to answer the letters of Congressman Kucinich and Tom Hayden. After all, the Hayden and Kucinich letters were addressed to Howard Dean, not anonymous Dean defenders on DU.

Let Dean speak for himself. He's wasn't so shy before he became head of the Democratic Party National Committee. And the only thing that can stop Howard Dean from answering the Hayden/Kucinich letters is Dean himself!

I don't think he should waste his time explaining that to DK or anyone.

Now how bout those national ID's I would love to hear him talk about those.

cheap shot at Dean in his Open Letter. Kucinich's letter was made PUBLIC, so the PUBLIC has a right to respond, if it wants to. I'm one of the public and I responded. If Kucinich wanted to address Dean's position on Iraq, he should have kept the letter between him and Dean.

Here's my Open Letter to Dennis Kucinich
http://tinyrippleofhope.blogspot.com/

If Dennis can spread his distortions, I can fight back against Dennis.

eom

were speaking for themselves. We shouldn't attempt to restrict people from voicing their opinions on issues, because "so-n-so" can speak for themselves. I think that attempts to curb people's ability to express themselves on important democratic issues is a luxury we can not afford.

DK seems to be all to willing to throw everyone else under the wheels for his own gain. I'm sorry, but no one appointed him the supreme moral authority of the Democratic Party. He has every right to speak his opinions, but he should be more mindful that not everyone agrees with him or his proposed courses of action.

For those who haven't read the Hayden and Kucinich letters here they are:

TOM HAYDEN'S LETTER

April 26, 2005

Dear Chairman Dean,

Thank you kindly for your call and your expressed willingness to discuss the Democratic Party's position on the Iraq War. There is growing frustration at the grass roots towards the party leadership's silent collaboration with the Bush Administration's policies. Personally, I cannot remember a time in thirty years when I have been more despairing over the party's moral default. Let me take this opportunity to explain.

The party's alliance with the progressive left, so carefully repaired after the catastrophic split of 2000, is again beginning to unravel over Iraq. Thousands of anti-war activists and millions of antiwar voters gave their time, their loyalty and their dollars to the 2004 presidential campaign despite profound misgivings about our candidate's position on the Iraq War. Of the millions spent by "527" committees on voter awareness, none was spent on criticizing the Bush policies in Iraq.

The Democratic candidate, and other party leaders, even endorsed the US invasion of Falluja, giving President Bush a green-light to destroy that city with immunity from domestic criticism. As a result, a majority of Falluja's residents were displaced violently, guaranteeing a Sunni abstention from the subsequent Iraqi elections.

Then in January, a brave minority of Democrats, led by Senator Ted Kennedy and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, advocated a timetable for withdrawal. Their concerns were quickly deflated by the party leadership.

Next came the Iraqi elections, in which a majority of Iraqis supported a platform calling for a timetable for US withdrawal. ("US Intelligence Says Iraqis Will Press for Withdrawal." New York Times, Jan. 18, 2005) AJanuary 2005 poll showed that 82 percent of Sunnis and 69 percent of Shiites favored a "near-term US withdrawal" (New York Times, Feb. 21, 2005. The Democrats failed to capitalize on this peace sentiment, as if it were a threat rather than an opportunity.

Three weeks ago, tens of thousands of Shiites demonstrated in Baghdad calling again for US withdrawal, chanting "No America, No Saddam." (New York Times, April 10, 2005) The Democrats ignored this massive nonviolent protest.

There is evidence that the Bush Administration, along with its clients in Baghdad, is ignoring or suppressing forces within the Iraqi coalition calling for peace talks with the resistance. The Democrats are silent towards this meddling.

On April 12, Donald Rumsfeld declared "we don't really have an exit strategy. We have a victory strategy." (New York Times, April 13, 2005). There was no Democratic response.

The new Iraqi regime, lacking any inclusion of Sunnis or critics of our occupation, is being pressured to invite the US troops to stay. The new government has been floundering for three months, hopelessly unable to provide security or services to the Iraqi people. Its security forces are under constant siege by the resistance. The Democrats do nothing.

A unanimous Senate, including all Democrats, supports another $80-plus billion for this interminable conflict. This is a retreat even from the 2004 presidential campaign when candidate John Kerry at least voted against the supplemental funding to attract Democratic voters.

The Democratic Party's present collaboration with the Bush Iraq policies is not only immoral but threatens to tear apart the alliance built with antiwar Democrats, Greens, and independents in 2004. The vast majority of these voters returned to the Democratic Party after their disastrous decision to vote for Ralph Nader four years before. But the Democrats' pro-war policies threaten to deeply splinter the party once again.

We all supported and celebrated your election as Party chairman, hoping that winds of change would blow away what former president Bill Clinton once called "brain-dead thinking."

But it seems to me that your recent comments about Iraq require further reflection and reconsideration if we are to keep the loyalty of progressives and promote a meaningful alternative that resonates with mainstream American voters.

Let me tell you where I stand personally. I do not believe the Iraq War is worth another drop of blood, another dollar of taxpayer subsidy, another stain on our honor. Our occupation is the chief cause of the nationalist resistance in that country. We should end the war and foreign economic occupation. Period.

To those Democrats in search of a muscular, manly foreign policy, let me say that real men (and real patriots) do not sacrifice young lives for their own mistakes, throw good money after bad, or protect the political reputations of high officials at the expense of their nation's moral reputation.

At the same time, I understand that there are limitations on what a divided political party can propose, and that there are internal pressures from hawkish Democratic interest groups. I am not suggesting that the Democratic Party has to support language favoring "out now" or "isolation." What I am arguing is that the Democratic Party must end its silent consent to the Bush Administration's Iraq War policies and stand for a negotiated end to the occupation and our military presence. The Party should seize on Secretary Rumsfeld's recent comments to argue that the Republicans have never had an "exit strategy" because they have always wanted a permanent military outpost in the Middle East, whatever the cost.

The Bush Administration deliberately conceals the numbers of American dead in the Iraq War. Rather than the 1,500 publicly acknowledged, the real number is closer to 2,000 when private contractors are counted.

The Iraq War costs one billion dollars in taxpayer funds every week. In "red" states like Missouri, the taxpayer subsidy for the Iraq War could support nearly 200,000 four-year university scholarships.

Military morale is declining swiftly. Prevented by antiwar opinion from re-instituting the military draft, the Bush Administration is forced to intensify the pressures on our existing forces. Already forty percent of those troops are drawn from the National Guard or reservists. Recruitment has fallen below its quotas, and 37 military recruiters are among the 6,000 soldiers who are AWOL.

President Bush's "coalition of the willing" is steadily weakening, down from 34 countries to approximately twenty. Our international reputation has become that of a torturer, a bully.

The anti-war movement must lead and hopefully, the Democratic Party will follow. But there is much the Democratic Party can do:

First, stop marginalizing those Democrats who are calling for immediate withdrawal or a one-year timetable. Encourage pubic hearings in Congressional districts on the ongoing costs of war and occupation, with comparisons to alternative spending priorities for the one billion dollars per week.

Second, call for peace talks between Iraqi political parties and the Iraqi resistance. Hold hearings demand to know why the Bush Administration is trying to squash any such Iraqi peace initiatives. (Bush Administration officials are hoping the new Iraqi government will "settle for a schedule based on the military situation, not the calendar." New York Times, Jan. 19, 2005).

Third, as an incentive to those Iraqi peace initiatives, the US needs to offer to end the occupation and withdraw our troops by a near-term date. The Bush policy, supported by the Democrats, is to train and arm Iraqis to fight Iraqis--a civil war with fewer American casualties.

Fourth, to further promote peace initiatives, the US needs to specify that a multi-billion dollar peace dividend will be earmarked for Iraqi-led reconstruction, not for the Halliburtons and Bechtels, without discrimination as to Iraqi political allegiances.

Fifth, Democrats could unite behind Senator Rockefellers's persistent calls for public hearings on responsibility for the torture scandals. If Republicans refuse to permit such hearings, Democrats should hold them independently. "No taxes for torture" is a demand most Democrats should be able to support. The Democratic Senate unity against the Bolton appointment is a bright but isolated example of how public hearings can keep media and public attention focused on the fabricated reasons for going to war.

Instead of such initiatives, the national Democratic Party is either committed to the Iraq War, or to avoiding blame for losing the Iraq War, at the expense of the social programs for which it historically stands. The Democrats' stance on the war cannot be separated from the Democrats' stance on health care, social security, inner city investment, and education, all programs gradually being defunded by a war which costs $100 billion yearly, billed to future generations.

This is a familiar pattern for those of us who suffered through the Vietnam War. Today it is conventional wisdom among Washington insiders, including even the liberal media, that the Democratic Party must distance itself from its antiwar past, and must embrace a position of military toughness.

The truth is quite the opposite. What the Democratic Party should distance itself from is its immoral and self-destructive pro-war positions in the 1960s which led to unprecedented polarization, the collapse of funds for the War on Poverty, a schism in the presidential primaries, and the destruction of the Lyndon Johnson presidency. Thirty years after our forced withdrawal from Vietnam, the US government has stable diplomatic and commercial relations with its former Communist enemy. The same future is possible in Iraq.

I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, not to take the anti-war majority of this Party for granted. May I suggest that you initiate a serious reappraisal of how the Democratic Party has become trapped in the illusions which you yourself questioned so cogently when you ran for president. I believe that an immediate commencement of dialogue is necessary to fix the credibility gap in the Party's position on the Iraq War. Surely if the war was a mistake based on a fabrication, there is a better approach than simply becoming accessories to the perpetrators of the deceit. And surely there is a greater role for Party leadership than permanently squandering the immense good will, grass roots funding, and new volunteer energy that was generated by your visionary campaign.

TOM HAYDEN


-----------------------------------------------------------------

An Open Letter to Howard Dean
by Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich

Dear Chairman Dean,

Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul Wellstone, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we're there , we're there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed?


ADVERTISEMENTPerhaps you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only the latest in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a strategy of letting "no light show" between Democrats and the President on the war. Emphasize the economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in 2004.

Following this advice has kept us in the minority. During the 2002 election cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side (the President's party always loses seats in the midterm election), the Democratic leadership in Congress cut a deal with the President to bring the war resolution to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden ceremony. The "no light" strategy yielded a historic result: For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt, a President increased his majorities in both houses of Congress during a recession.

The President went into the 2004 election with tremendous vulnerability on the war, which the Democratic Party again sacrificed: by avoiding the issue of withdrawal from Iraq in the party platform, omitting it from campaign speeches and deleting it from the national convention.

Why does failure surely follow from sweeping the war and occupation under the rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals of all time, and it has energized grassroots activity like few others.

President Bush led the country into war based on false information, falsified threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war and the continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want to hunt Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim world. His war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the world for America after our losses of September 11. He enriched his cronies at Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he diverted our attention and abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the September 11 attack; instead, we are mired in occupation. The President's war and occupation in Iraq has already cost $125 billion, nearly 1,600 American lives, more than 11,000 American casualties and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis. The occupation has been more costly in this regard than the war.

There is no end in sight for the occupation of Iraq. The President says we will stay until we're finished. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service concluded that the United States is probably building permanent military bases in Iraq. The President refuses to consider an exit strategy. The Republican Congress gives the President whatever he asks for.

We can draw no clearer distinction with the President than over this war. He cannot right a wrong (unjustified war) by perpetuating a military occupation. Military victory there is not possible. General Tommy Franks concedes that. The war will end when we say it's over. The Democratic leadership should be pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.

That's what most Democrats want, too. Your performance in the early stages of the primary, and your recent chairmanship of the party, were made possible by many, many progressive and liberal Democrats. It was their hope and expectation that you would prevent the party from repeating its past drift to the Republican-lite center. They hoped that this time the party would not abandon them or its core beliefs again.

Yet you say that you hope the President succeeds. With no pressure exerted from the leadership of the Democratic Party, the past threatens to repeat itself in 2006. We may not leave Iraq or our minority status in Washington for a long time to come.

Dennis J. Kucinich

DK claims to be speaking for me more than once in his letter. I've got news for him - he doesn't. NO ONE has EVER given him even an iota of authority within the party. If he wants to state HIS stance on the issue. Fine. If he wants to push it, that's fine too. But pretending he embodies the moral high-road is total bullshit.

If we had more of these kinds of politicians during world war II, more jews would have died. and who knows what else. I'm glad that these people are considered fringe or else the American people might take them seriously. Come on isolationist policy?

"If we had more of these kinds of politicians during world war II, more jews would have died. and who knows what else. I'm glad that these people are considered fringe or else the American people might take them seriously. Come on isolationist policy?"

So Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq is simply a fight against Nazism! It's World War II all over again! I think it was Bush who compared Saddam to Hitler. I don't think any progressive should use Bush's arguments in defense of the invasion or any of his arguments in support of the occupation such as "we can't cut and run".

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I certainly don't object to people indicating why they disagree with Hayden and Kucinich on this or any other matter. This is a free speech forum for progressives. However, it would be nice to hear from Howard Dean himself on this matter! That's my point.

He has stated his position CLEARLY all along. He still does as he appears around the country.

I don't think Hayden, Kucinich et al "like it", that's all.

Tough; ain't gonna get him to change it. And he SHOULDN'T change it.

Finally, it's NOT a Democratic policy decision. It's Howard's position on the war. If you want the Democrats to come out and speak in favor of leaving, talk to the party leaders, Pelosi and Reid. It's THEIR job to set the policy; and they have been very outspoken in telling Dean NOT to.

So if you disagree with Dean's position and you would like the PARTY LEADERS to take up Hayden's and Kucinich's positions, tell THEM and QUIT attacking Dean.

P.S. I don't recall Hayden and Kucinich and PDA attacking McAuliffe on this issue.

No. As a matter of common courtesy and respect he ought to reply to the main political points and content of those letters. They are written by leading Democrats. His prior statements on Iraq have little or nothing to do with the state of the Democratic Party or most of the other points in those letters.

I'm surprised to learn that Howard Dean is no longer considered a Democratic Party leader now that he merely chairman of the Democratic Party National Committe. So is Howard Dean now functioning as a janitor at the Democratic Party headquarters, stuffing envelopes or passing around the collection plate at fund raisers?

By forcing him to, once again, state his position. It's as if they personally feel he needs to justify it.

He has explained it adequately, time and again.

Some people just don't want to accept it, that's all.

Dean's job is not to make policy, but to fundraise and help the Dems take back their Majority status. Kucinich should KNOW this by now.

you're advocating for ineffieciency. Also you conveniently left out that Dean's position is the same. THis is flame bait obviously with the orginal poster leaving out certain information to serve his agenda.

Nothing has been left out of the letters. Hayden and Kucinich can and have spoken for themselves and don't need my help to make their points.

It looks like the Democratic Party "old guard" is circling the wagons to protect the party from Democrats and other progressives who raise the slightest criticism of those Democrats who function as Bush enablers .... you know .... the ones who vote for the war, vote for the occupation, vote for Bush's presidential appointments and even vote for Bush's right-wing legislative agenda.

Some Democratic Party leaders certainly hope that progressives would just go away and let them alone. How dare people suggest, in public, that the Democratic Party should not support Bush's occupation of Iraq! If anyone doesn't like the way Democratic Party leaders are collaborating with the Bush government they ought to keep it to themselves or at just send very private letters to Harry Reid, that great progressive Democratic leader in the Senate. You know Senator Reid. He's the one who opposes abortion rights, defends the occupation of Iraq and brags about how he got the anti-consumer "class action" and bankruptcy bills passed in the Senate!

Ya. Send a private letter to Senator Reid .... maybe an e-mail. He'll pay attention to the anti-war movement, the labor movement and the women's rights movement. Sure.

But, the Deaniacs and the occupation apologists are out in force to save their hero.

First of all you're assuming that Dean didn't have this position during the primaries. WRONG. Second of all you believe we have no right to counter against false attacks on our leaders. I DISAGREE WITH YOU. Third you believe in isolationist policies...if we had more people like your ideas in the 1940s more Jews would have died, and who knows what.

I thought people from my State had the integrity of defending the politicians we like and trust.

1. I did know that Dean had the same position during the primaries.

2. I believe that everyone has a right to express their opinions.

3. I don't believe in "isolationist" policies.

As for the Jews in the '30s and '40s, it was the Nazis who illegally, imorally, and brutally, invaded and occupied countries against the will of the people of those countries, much like this country has done in Iraq. Now, Howard Dean supports the occupation and says that he hopes the aggressors will be "successful".

As for being ashamed of being from the same state because I don't support the war and occupation as Dean does....you'll probably get over it.

What is this isolationist policy you speak of? The people I know are absolutely outraged at the amount of money going into occupying, rebuilding, and liberating Iraq; of course, most are plain, podunk, boonie folk with that common reactionary response to their social programs being sliced into, public institutions SHUT down, jobs threatened, food scarce, medical non-existent, & life generally getting HARDER by the day. True, it has taken lots of talking to convince such people WHY these things are happening, but all of the revelations about how our leaders took us into this illegal War have made it a damn sight easier to bring them around to seeing that our nation is headed down a path that will never concern itself with the common people here.

So, instead of jumping on others who probably have had the same experience working with those on the fence of supporting this current administration and obviously have heard and observed Democratic shiners making statements about putting our opposition to the war with Iraq aside, to work WITH our opponents to "bring Peace to the region" and support the effort of "democracy in Iraq", maybe you should be considering all of the registered Non-Voters this sort of "supportive Policy" is actually creating.

Opposition to this occupation has been the perfect opportunity to expose the intentions of the right-wing in our country, at the GRASSROOTS level (at least in rural Washington state; my experience may be isolated). But reading statements and pleas such as the letters from Kucinich and Hayden gives me hope that it most likely is a general feeling across the country that this invasion was the last straw for many of the otherwise conservative voters and the Democrats will be making one huge mistake not to run with that knowledge.

Perhaps you should try trusting the integrity of more voters and expect our politicians to do a better job of reflecting that integrity.

I'll start by saying that I think the US should get out today. If a violent thug plunges a knife into the back of a victim, the knife needs to come out. The thug can't be trusted to take it out carefully, because he doesn't want to harm the victim. This administration is that thug. We need to get out now.

Having said that, I felt that last night, DUers were given a great opportunity to witness a discussion/debate between Will Pitt and mzmolly. I felt they both did a remarkable job in not only expressing their opinions, and backing their stances up with a high quality of evidence, but more: they role-modeled how we should be discussing serious issues, even when we disagree strongly.

I considered that discussion one of the better things I've seen on DU. It was done in a manner that I felt raised the standard of rational, positive DU debate.

And here is the DU link to that discussion for those who missed it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3598276

I'm sorry, I thought this was a political forum. :eyes:

When anything gets posted here, DUers usually respond to it. If you want Howard Dean to say something, then don't tell DUers, tell Howard Dean. Have you asked him for his response?

"so we shouldn't post the letters because you don't want us to respond? I'm sorry, I thought this was a political forum."

It is a political discussion forum and your opinions are welcomed by me and probably everyone else. You probably didn't read post #18 where I wrote:

"Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I certainly don't object to people indicating why they disagree with Hayden and Kucinich on this or any other matter. This is a free speech forum for progressives. However, it would be nice to hear from Howard Dean himself on this matter! That's my point."

"If you want Howard Dean to say something, then don't tell DUers, tell Howard Dean. Have you asked him for his response?"

Yes I have. I urged him to respond soon to both letters. And this is the reply I received from the Democratic Party National Committee: "Thank you for your comments."

Perhaps you should attempt to communicate with him directly, instead of publicly grandstanding, as Kucinich and Hayden are doing.

I find it difficult to believe the chairman of the Democratic Party would refuse to take a phone call from either, or even sit down with them. Some guy on a message board, I dunno, but maybe you could catch him on a light day.

"Perhaps you should attempt to communicate with him directly, instead of publicly grandstanding, as Kucinich and Hayden are doing.

I find it difficult to believe the chairman of the Democratic Party would refuse to take a phone call from either,"

Perhaps you haven't read Tom Hayden's letter yet. Dean called Hayden.

TOM HAYDEN'S LETTER
April 26, 2005

"Thank you kindly for your call and your expressed willingness to discuss the Democratic Party's position on the Iraq War."

I don't claim to have the same political standing and political credentials as Tom Hayden and Dennis Kucinich. If I did, I would have wrote to him. Taking a stand against Bush's occupation and those Democrats who support it is not grandstanding. What should anti-war progressives do? I don't think that progressives inside and outside of the Democratic Party should just shut their mouths when Democrats defend Bush's occupation. Those who support the occupation are very vocal and public. For example, Howard Dean. Why should we be silent?

1. Stop telling Dean on the DU forum what to say or do and let Dean say or do it.

2. However, use the DU forum to express a view about Dean which could be instead sent in a letter by the OP to Dean.

:shrug:

Be that as it may, Howard Dean has always requested feedback from his supporters and even those who are not-so-supportive. It is possible that someone who reads DU and possibly is a member will read the forum and pass along information which finds its way to Dean.

The following is an article that appears on the Progressive Democrats of America website. I don't believe it is copyrighted and while I don't entirely agree with the article it presents the viewpoint of an important segment of the Democratic Party. You can find other articles on their website regarding this matter.

Whatever political disagreements on strategy or tactics I may have with Hayden, Kucinich or other leaders of PDA, I have no question about their honest opposition to the war in Iraq and its occupation. They are doing what they can to end it. And I hope and believe that their letters will help us to reach that goal.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Democratic Party Leadership and the Iraq Quagmire

Howard Dean recently stated regarding Iraq, "Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out." While Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) honors and respects Governor Dean's effort to expand, empower, and energize the Democratic Party grassroots base, and further respects his engagement of small contributors and individual activists, we take strong exception to Governor Dean's statements on Iraq.

We do not believe his statements reflect the will or the wisdom of the majority of the American people who oppose the Bush administration's ongoing disastrous and immoral war policies. The Democratic Party National Platform for America states, "Promoting human rights is a basic value of our foreign policy." Our foreign policy regarding Iraq has failed to live up to this promise.

The facts are quite clear:

The Bush Administration, using false intelligence estimates, misled the country into an illegal, unnecessary and unwise invasion and occupation of Iraq, a country that had neither attacked, nor posed an immediate threat to, the United States.
As a result of that action, more than 1,500 American troops have been killed, more than 10,000 other brave Americans have been maimed or injured, and tens of thousands of Iraqis, including many innocent civilians, have also lost their lives, been injured, and seen their property and country's infrastructure destroyed.
The occupation has created a severe burden on our economy, stretched the capacity of our armed forces, including Reserve and National Guard troops who are serving unexpectedly long and difficult tours in Iraq, and continues to cause deep concern at home and abroad about the policies and intentions of the United States. The latter has developed to such a stark degree that the United States is widely regarded with suspicion, hostility and distrust.
Any argument along the lines of "We are there, so we have to stay" ignores the detailed, multifaceted and eminently workable plans for withdrawal that have been offered from many quarters. "We have to stay" empowers the rhetoric, profiteering and poor planning of the very officials who dropped us into this mess in the first place. "We have to stay" is the easy answer, and as Americans united for the cause of justice, we should strive to get past the easy answer to find the correct one.
Forty eight of fifty one Vermont towns that considered resolutions opposing the war in Iraq and calling on the President and Congress to get the troops out of Iraq passed the resolutions at town meetings this March. In other words, the grassroots spoke and spoke clearly. The California State Democratic Party Convention in April, the largest gathering of state-party Democrats in the nation, passed a resolution calling for the termination of the occupation of Iraq and withdrawal of American troops from that country. In other words, the Party base spoke.

In light of these facts, PDA calls upon Governor Dean and the Democratic Party leadership to advocate and work for:

Termination of the occupation and withdrawal of American troops.
Participation by the U.S. in multilateral reconstruction, not with soldiers and Houston-based corporations, but with engineers, aid workers, reparations, and with respect for Iraqi autonomy.
Leadership necessitates an ability to articulate a vision of how things can and should be. We long to see such a vision advanced by the Democratic Party leadership regarding Iraq. Failure to do so arguably cost the Democrats a presidency. There is nothing more debilitating than leadership that can't describe why it is doing what it is doing.

PDA calls for an end to the occupation of Iraq that is making the situation there and here worse, not moving Iraq toward a point when we can better withdraw. PDA calls upon the Democratic Party leadership to make this their demand as well. Justice demands it. Sane foreign policy demands it. Domestic needs and programs demand it. Morality demands it. The American people demand it.

We hope Chairman Dean also comes to understand the ultimate wisdom of immediately withdrawal and ceases empowering the rhetoric and actions of those who got us in this mess in the first place.

He is now the spokesman of the Democratic party and thus really can't speak to his own opinion on issues.

I'm not sure that everyon realizes what his actual role is now. I'd like to see groups of democrats in the House and Senate would begin to speak out more inside the halls of congress, and on the steps. I'd like to see them traveling from college to college, and speaking out strongly against the war. I don't think President Bush cares what Dean says, so long as our elected officials remain knots on a log, scared to tell the truth about this damned war.

So whose opinion was Howard Dean presenting when he spoke out and wished George Bush success with his occupation of Iraq? You imply that other Democratic Party leaders will not permit Dean to say what he really thinks about Iraq or that he is compelled to echo the party line in support of Bush's military operation against Iraq in order to keep his "job". If true, that is not the behavior of someone who has courage and fights for progressive ideas.

If Howard Dean truly feels under such constraint and wishes to take the "muzzle" off he can always resign as chairman of the party.

I don't believe that's the problem. I believe Howard Dean when he speaks in support of the colonial occupation of Iraq. I don't think he is lying just to satisfy the party. And if I'm wrong, and Howard Dean is in fact lying to protect pro-war Democratic politicians and/or his job, you'd have to say that Dean has no firm progressive political principals and beliefs. Such behavior would be appropriate for a unprincipled political opportunist and not someone who aspires to help lead the fight, as Chairman of the Democratic Party, against the right wing Bush regime in Washington.

The poster did not imply that in the least. If you think that was implied, you are in error. The poster accurately described the position and responsibility of the party chairperson. It has nothing to do with the other leaders' positions.

This is flame-bait.