Dean: "I will tear up the Bush Doctrine."

It's (relatively) old - but one of his best...

Published on Thursday, April 17, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong
by Howard Dean

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

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

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

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

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

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

Has he mentioned those things?

Specificly he has problems with lawyerless detention. It should be noted that one good thing the Patriot Act did is allow us to clamp down on people sending money abroad to avoid taxes. I don't know about Gitmo.

so that's cool

He's speaking my language, good for him

I hadn't seen it before.

:)

Thought I'd give the IRW candidate supporters something to chew on. And they wonder why we stick with our guy?

But in February he was saying this:

He gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html

So in February, he was not opposed to the concept of unilateral, preemptive war. Now he's saying he is opposed to it. How will we know when his position is finished 'evolving'? Will a cock crow or something?

Direct quote - not paraphrased by the Salon author:

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

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

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

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

If particular weapons of mass destruction are discovered, by the inspectors or otherwise, they must be destroyed immediately, by the inspectors or by the Iraqi government. If they are not, their destruction should be accomplished by military action under the UN. I believe that every member of the Security Council would support such an approach.

Saddam Hussein must not have weapons of mass destruction. But particular weapons can be destroyed without an all-out war to impose a change of regimes. That is a much larger step, for which the case has not yet been made.

More: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5606&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1321

sometimes. I'm glad we straightened that out.

But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.
--John Kerry Jan. 23, 2003
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html


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

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

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

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

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

Not because it is politically expedient. Sorry you were unclear about this - maybe you should consider supporting Dean?

I'm not going to make up some base motivation to characterize Dean's position with. It is enough to just listen to what Dean and Kerry have said on these issues to compare their positions. Your commentary is a cogent as most I've seen on TV.

Dean:Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html

Kerry: "If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible." http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html




Dean:"In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred."
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html

Kerry:"we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war."
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

On March 18, the eve of war:

Dean:"never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000395.html

Once the war is happening, on March 20:

Dean: "It's hard to criticize the president when you've got troops in the field" Dean to ease up on Bush

Courageous. What was Kerry saying a few days later, on April 3:

Kerry: "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States"
Kerry Says US Needs Its Own Regime Change

On April 7:

Kerry: "This is a democracy, we could be at war a year from now. Would we put the election on hold?" Kerry Stands By Bush Criticism

Dean would support unilateral action. Supporting unilateral action in a hypothetical scenerio where it would justify it, is not the same as supporting Bush's invasion of Iraq.

That's what I'm saying.

preemptive as in you attack a country which isn't an imminent threat to you before they attack, or preemptive as in you attack a country which is an imminent threat? Any president will wage unilateral war if it comes down to it.

as I see it both Dean and Kerry said basically similar things, WMDs, (hell even I, a much bigger sceptic than Dean or Kerry I'd bet, thought they'd at least find a chemistry set or something), war only a last resort, a multilateral effort, etc. look I don't need to spew all those quotes again? The only difference is that Kerry voted on the resolution and Dean didn't. It's ready-made ammo for Dean to use against Kerry. And I find it so silly to say Kerry made this vote out of political expediency. Kerry, the seasoned politician, makes the vote most likely to anger both his base and the people he needs to appeal to in order to win the nomination, and it's labelled expediency.

He ran away from them:

Antiwar Protesters Challenge Kerry in Boston
'John Kerry, War Monger: Kiss Your Votes Goodbye'

by Glen Johnson

Some 60 people turned out last night to protest Senator John F. Kerry's conditional support for military action in Iraq, complaining that the use of armed force would be driven by a quest for oil and would rob funding for domestic priorities such as education and health care.

''We're here tonight to send a message to John Kerry: Oppose the dangerous, reckless, and unnecessary war,'' yelled Eric Weltman, organizing director of Citizens for Participation in Political Action, as he addressed the crowd by bullhorn in the parking lot of the John F. Kennedy Library.


Kelly McCutcheon Adams, of Brighton, Mass., right, joins about 100 protesters outside the John F. Kennedy Library to criticize Sen. John Kerry , D-Mass., for not taking a stronger stand against U.S. military action in Iraq, Sunday, Feb. 9, 2003, in Boston. Kerry spoke at the library where he criticized the Bush administration on environmental issues. (AP Photo/Lisa Poole)

The group had planned to stand at the entrance to the library, where Kerry, who is campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, was delivering an environmental speech, but Boston police officers pushed them more than 100 yards away, citing the nation's heightened state of alert for a terrorist attack.

Some protestors held signs reading, ''John Kerry, War Monger: Kiss Your Votes Goodbye'' and ''Dorchester wants peace.''

While Kerry aides said the senator was not troubled by the protest, one of the first that has greeted him on the presidential campaign trail, he came to the library by a driveway that was closed to all other traffic and entered the building by an entrance behind and beneath the building.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0210-02.htm

And, the polls told him his vote was the "right" thing to do anyway...

Kerry supported Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

Dean did not support Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

Here's a litmus test:

I can name at least 2 occurances where, because of positions Dean has taken, he has put his political future on the line. I can back this up with Polls, election results, and articles.

Name 1 or 2 times where Kerry intentionally faced the end of his career in politics due to a position he took, or vote cast on an issue. Please provide supporting facts...

What I said was

Your characterizations are as credible as your candidate.

I'm not going to make up some base motivation to characterize Dean's position with. It is enough to just listen to what Dean and Kerry have said on these issues to compare their positions. Your commentary is a cogent as most I've seen on TV.

Dean:Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html

Kerry: "If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible." http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html




Dean:"In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred."
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html

Kerry:"we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war." http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

On March 18, the eve of war:

Dean:"never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000395.html

Once the war is happening, on March 20:

Dean: "It's hard to criticize the president when you've got troops in the field" Dean to ease up on Bush

Courageous. What was Kerry saying a few days later, on April 3:

Kerry: "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States"
Kerry Says US Needs Its Own Regime Change

On April 7:

Kerry: "This is a democracy, we could be at war a year from now. Would we put the election on hold?" Kerry Stands By Bush Criticism

In response you say: "Why the insults? Why not just state your argument?"

I've stated it. If all you hear are 'insults' perhaps you need a thicker skin. I haven't insulted anyone, I've cast doubt on your characterizations. I am making no comment whatsoever about you personally and I am sure you motives and intentions are honorable and that you want what is best for our country just as I do. However, I find your analysis of these statements of Kerry and Dean's to be without merit.

You can't know for certain what is in Kerry's heart anymore than I can... But I can speculate.

And, if you can't discuss this issue without bringing in your opinion of me, don't bother responding.

Come up with those 2 near political career ending moments for Kerry yet? Show me where he took a risk that (realistically) could have prevented him from keeping or gaining political power, and maybe it will increase my respect for the man.

I believe your characterization is wrong, just as you believe it is right. We've both stated our opinions, the links, the statements and records of both candidates are available for disinterested readers to peruse and with which to make up their own minds.

As for your 'challenge' -- obviously the issue at hand, the Iraq resolution vote, is one that was politically risky for Kerry. You have your interpretation of it which I don't share, but you are entitled to your opinion. You ask for another instance but I feel no need to come up with unpopular votes of Kerry's for you. I'm not trying to change your mind.

Funny, Kerry said those exact same words just a few weeks earlier. And also that Bush should finish the hard work of diplomacy.

Who said we 'should' go to war unilaterally as long as the inspections process was working and Saddam was not an imminent theat? Howard Dean isn't unique and if he couldn't steal other people's policies, he'd have no campaign at all. Well, except raise taxes. He's done it pretty well in Vermont, so he's got that one down all by himself.

Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the President to use unilateral force against Iraq - unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency.

I do not believe the President should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and the American people for why this war is necessary, and without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5606&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1321

Too bad he chose his Presidential ambitions over the welfare of the Country...

other occasions? Occasions which I would be happy to discuss (and document) in more detail if you want. So when Dean says "I would have" -- it's just more politicking.

Lies? Or deliberate distortions by desperate campaigns? :shrug:

See ya in the AM...

How fast do you think Kerry would have voted "no" if he had only been able to calculate the political payoff down the road?

Dean did not have that benefit, and followed his principles instead...

"Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.): I've said many times that I think we should raise the retirement age about the year 2015--raise it by that time to about age 70.

"Howard Dean: I am very pleased to hear Bob Packwood because I absolutely agree we need to reduce the--I mean, to increase the retirement age. There will be cuts and losses of some benefits, but I believe that Sen. Packwood is on exactly the right track."
--CNN's Crossfire, Feb. 28, 1995
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

Here we have Dean on the record as supporting raising the retirement age.

Russert: ...calling for that, and this is what Howard Dean said. "The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. 'It would be tough but we could do it,' he said."
Dean: Well, we fortunately don't have to do that now.
Russert: We have a $500 billion deficit.
Dean: But you don't have to cut Social Security to do that.
Russert: But why did you have to do it back then?
Dean: Well, because that was the middle of--I mean, I don't recall saying that, but I'm sure I did
--Meet the Press, June 22, 2003
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp

Here we have Dean being reminded, and acknowledging, on national TV on June 22 that he did hold this position.

"I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."
--AFL-CIO Democratic presidential candidate forum, Aug. 5, 2003
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

Here we have Dean denying on national TV on August 5 that he ever held that position.

How is that not a lie?


Now that we have established that Dean is a liar, why should I believe him when he says he 'would have' done something?
Should I consider it as believable as when he says he 'has never' done something?

I find it incredibly amusing that you choose to spend so much time trying to tear down Dean with your litany of decade old snipets. Spout all the propaganda you want one only need look at what kind of shape Vermont is in to get an idea of weather or not he would be an efective administrator. To hear you tell deans story Vermont should be a cesspool of despair filled with polution, coruption and people with no hope of ever getting ahead. Instead we find a state with an above average amount of people insure, with one of the best environmental standings in the nation and one of the few budgets left not in the red.

Clearly dean is the devil you have made him into in your mind hes just inept at the destruction you try to project on him as he couldnt pull it off in 12 years.

But keep practicing surely some people swallow the petty beefs you have with the man and will vote for someone else in the primaries based on your post full of comparative snipets.

you have been over every single point in your post above ad nauseum yet still you continue to repost the same things over and over.

If this is the best you can come up with after all the time you have spent trying to discredit the man . He is assured clear sailing all the way to the white house.

When he gets there I hope you arent too bitter to be happy that we got bush out.

I have come to the conclusion that your posts are worthless. After holding out hope for you for a long time ( because you are clearly an inteligent if misdirected guy) I welcome you to the ignore list. I look forward to the day when the nominations are over to return your voice on this board to my computer when perhaps you will be using your energy to defeating bush instead of wasting your time with on our democratic nominees.

Like the Social Security retirement age? The point is Dean is not honest. I've provided the links so if I've posted a 'snippet' that misrepresents, show us so. Your blanket assertion that Dean is honest in the face of a documented lie on a serious, relevant topic, is not persuasive.


I shown clearly that Dean lied. And all you can say in response is:
"He is assured clear sailing all the way to the white house."

...whoever you were having the back and forth with has been known only as Ignored to me...guess I'm just not as patient as you... ;)

But the issues at hand not addressed.

Why should I believe him when he says he 'would have' done something?
Should I consider it as believable as when he says he 'has never' done something?

I think if he remembered that he made the statement 8 YEARS AGO he would not have denied it. His view is different now.

You've never changed your thinking about an issue over a period of time? Do you remember every statement you made 8-10 years ago?

Russert: ...calling for that, and this is what Howard Dean said. "The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. 'It would be tough but we could do it,' he said."
Dean: Well, we fortunately don't have to do that now.
Russert: We have a $500 billion deficit.
Dean: But you don't have to cut Social Security to do that.
Russert: But why did you have to do it back then?
Dean: Well, because that was the middle of--I mean, I don't recall saying that, but I'm sure I did
--Meet the Press, June 22, 2003
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp

Here we have Dean being reminded, and acknowledging, on national TV on June 22 that he did hold this position.

"I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."
--AFL-CIO Democratic presidential candidate forum, Aug. 5, 2003
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

Here we have Dean denying on national TV on August 5 that he ever held that position.

Oh, he 'just forgot'.

position.

Courtesy of deandefense.org

Here's the background of the non-scandal:

On June 22, 2003, Tim Russert asked Gov. Dean on Meet the Press about his 1995 "prescription" statement for balancing the budget. Here is the statement (from the MTP transcript):

MR. RUSSERT: ...calling for that, and this is what Howard Dean said. "The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. 'It would be tough but we could do it,' he said."

Dean said in the MTP interview that he is no longer in favor of raising the retirement age. Roll the tape:

MR. RUSSERT: But you would no longer cut Social Security?

DR. DEAN: But you don't--no. I'm not ever going to cut Social Security benefits.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you raise retirement age to 70?

DR. DEAN: No. No.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you cut defense?

DR. DEAN: You don't have to do that either. Here's what you have to do. You got to get rid of the tax cuts, all of them, and then you have got to restrict spending. You've got to control--well, here's what we did in Vermont. We had some mild tax cuts in the '90s, not the huge ones that most other states did. Secondly, we put a lot of money into a rainy day fund, and I never let the Legislature spend more than the rate of growth of the economy, so the biggest increase I think we had in the almost 12 years I was governor was I think 5.2 percent or something like that. And then we paid off a quarter of our debt, which is what Bill Clinton did when he was president.

Now, we're not cutting higher education, we're not cutting K through 12, we're not cutting Medicaid for kids, and we have a balanced budget. So if you restrain spending, which is long-term spending, that's the key to balancing the budget. But you've got to get rid of the tax cuts because the hole is so very, very deep. And Social Security, I--the best way to balance Social Security budget right now, other than stop taking the money out for the tax cuts, is to expand the amount of money that Social Security payroll taxes apply to. It's limited now to something like $80,000. You let that rise. I also would entertain taking the retirement age to 68. It's at 67 now. I would entertain that.

His last statement on June 22 about this issue indicates that he is no longer in favor of raising the retirement age to 70. He said he would "entertain" raising the retirement age to 68, though.

The controversy: On August 5, 2003, the nine Democratic Presidential candidates participated in an AFL-CIO forum covering a wide range of labor issues and concerns. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) verbally attacked Howard Dean's position on the Social Security retirement age. Here is the transcript of what he said in response to a question about Social Security:

KUCINICH: I think that money belongs to Main Street, not Wall Street. That's why when I am elected president I'll block any efforts to try to privatize Social Security. And we need to take the retirement age back to 65. The fact of the matter is that workers everywhere -- you understand that, because when you work a lifetime, 20, 30, 40 years at a job, people get to 65 years, you know, they can be tired. And they deserve to be able to retire at age 65 at 100 percent benefit. But some of the candidates up here, though -- you know, for example, my good friend, Mr. Dean, has said that he'd move the retirement age to 68. One time he talked about moving it to 70. This is a night for truth telling. Which of the candidates here will take the retirement age back to 65? Which of the candidates here will commit to blocking the privatization of Social Security? Which of the candidates here will make sure that workers, when a company goes bankrupt, will be able to stand first in line with the banks to be able to protect their retirement savings?

Now, it is this author's opinion that Kucinich either mistakenly or deliberately distorted Dean's position by only using his 1995 statement that Tim Russert's researcher dug up for Meet the Press. When Kucinich said "he'd move the retirement age to 68", he was distorting what Dean said by slicing Dean's statement as broadly as possible without getting called on it.

Here is Dean's reply to Kucinich:

DEAN: Yes. Bob , when we first looked to the rules for this debate, we were told if anybody mentioned our name, that automatically gave us a minute.

I'm not going to go back and ask you to change the rules, but I think I'll take 20 seconds just to tell everybody that I have never favored Social Security retirement at age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68.

Now let me talk a little bit about unions.

(APPLAUSE)

No, not 65.

The "never favored" phrase is what is generating all the controversy. If you look at the 1995 statement, Dean misspoke by using the phrase "never favored". To Dean's credit, he admitted he misspoke the next day.

As of this writing, he is no longer in favor of raising the retirement age. His position has changed, and he now believes that the salary contribution limit to Social Security should be adjusted. According to the Newsday article, he is in favor of raising the salary limit from the current $87,000 or removing it completely.

Later, in an Iowa speech, he says that he is not in favor of raising the retirement age to 68. (Check out minute 36 of the C-SPAN archive of the event for the full answer). He does not get into the history of his position. Here is his statement:

DEAN: Sure, I'll be happy to. Let me respond to one other thing that Dennis said. Dennis is a good guy, but he said that I approved of increasing the Social Security age to 70. That is not so. I do not approve of increasing the retirement age. If we want to fix Social Security, we want to do it by uncapping the amount of income. A CEO who makes 45 million dollars a year pays the same Social Security tax as somebody who makes 85 thousand dollars a year. That's ridiculous. The President gave all that money away to that CEO. We ought to at least have them pay their fair share of Social Security. We'll get that one off the table right now.

In summary, here is the evolution of Dean's positions on Social Security in chronological order:

Gov. Dean used to be in favor of raising the retirement age to 70.
After President Clinton demonstrated that Social Security could be better-funded with a strong economy, he gave up that position.
Given Social Security's current state, he later entertained the idea of raising the retirement age to 68 (it is currently 67).
Currently, he is against any increase of the retirement age.
In order to fix Social Security, he is now in favor of either raising or removing the salary contribution cap (currently set at $85,000, according to Gov. Dean, or $87,000, according to Nedra Pickler of the AP).
As far as the controversy is concerned, he admitted he misspoke at the AFL-CIO event within 24 hours after the misstatement was made.

Sources:

AFL-CIO August 5, 2003 debate transcript:
Meet The Press June 22, 2003 transcript:
C-SPAN: Dickinson County, Iowa - Arnolds Park Meet-and-Greet: (Minute 36 - Question about WTO)
Admittance of misstatement:

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-dean-social-%20security,0,2509226.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

http://deandefense.org/archives/000671.html

"Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.): I've said many times that I think we should raise the retirement age about the year 2015--raise it by that time to about age 70.

"Howard Dean: I am very pleased to hear Bob Packwood because I absolutely agree we need to reduce the--I mean, to increase the retirement age. There will be cuts and losses of some benefits, but I believe that Sen. Packwood is on exactly the right track."
--CNN's Crossfire, Feb. 28, 1995
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

Here we have Dean on the record as supporting raising the retirement age.

Russert: ...calling for that, and this is what Howard Dean said. "The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. 'It would be tough but we could do it,' he said."
Dean: Well, we fortunately don't have to do that now.
Russert: We have a $500 billion deficit.
Dean: But you don't have to cut Social Security to do that.
Russert: But why did you have to do it back then?
Dean: Well, because that was the middle of--I mean, I don't recall saying that, but I'm sure I did
--Meet the Press, June 22, 2003
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp

Here we have Dean being reminded, and acknowledging, on national TV on June 22 that he did hold this position.

13 days later:

"I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."
--AFL-CIO Democratic presidential candidate forum, Aug. 5, 2003
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

Here we have Dean denying on national TV on August 5 that he ever held that position.

that he misspoke.

What about John Kerry forgetting he's NOT Irish? Do you think that's something one ever forgets?

Let me remind you what Howard Dean said on Russert via your quote.

"I don't recall saying that..." That statement means 'he didn't recall' later I imagine he investigated and found that Russert was correct so he immediately corrected himself.

I don't recall every thing I said 8 years ago. YOU? In addition, these guys are campaigning on very little sleep and working their arses off. Howard Dean is sleeping in the homes of strangers and hasn't missed ONE event.

I've cut they guys some slack myself. If he intended to lie, he'd be stupid because anyone knows it would come out. And, I know Dean is not stupid, nor is he a liar.

If he were, he'd be saying he wouldn't raise taxes...like the others. Now there's a lie that can get you elected.

the next day. I guess to some, that makes him seem honest.

You keep going back to June 22 but the blatant public lie was on August 5. And, by the way, yes I do remember whether I thought 8 years about whether the retirement age should be raised. I'm not senile and I'm not stupid, so yes, I remember my own opinions. Dean isn't senile or stupid either and I don't believe that he really didn't remember on June 22, but even if he didn't, that doesn't excuse his lie on August 5.

That's what Howard said back in 2002. Not voting to do anything about it isn't putting the welfare of the country over his own politicizing of the war. In the two paragraphs you list he tries to have it both ways. Saying he'd vote no, but demanding something be done and acting as if Bush wasn't going through the motions of working through the UN at the very time he made these statements. There really isn't any hope for this country if people on the left can be as easily blinded by Dean as people on the right are blinded by Bush.

Everyone agreed Saddam was a threat and Saddam was eager to get his hands on WMDs, but elder statesmen like Senator Byrd was clearly telling the Senate that the resolution they were voting on was giving too much authority to Bush, but so many did not listen to him.

Today he seems like a prophet, whose vision of what was going to happen was clear. The Senate was blinded by its desire to be in bed with Bush. Most of the Democratic Senators wanted to be the one who stood against the rush to war. Lincoln Chafee, a Republican, heeded Byrd's words.

Dean saw Saddam as a threat as well, though he wasn't privvy to all the information. He has stated over and over that he would have opted for a different resolution that didn't give Bush a blank check.

Senator Byrd had his view. Other respected Democratic Senators disagreed. It's just that simple.

And we can talk about Biden-Lugar forever, but it doesn't change the fact that Bush DID everything in Biden-Lugar anyway. And Dean supported that. So where does he come off saying he's anti-war now? He was no more anti-war than any other Senator voting for the resolution that passed.

If you called the police because you thought somebody was breaking into the house across the street and the policy got there and illegally shot somebody, does that mean you caused it or were even wrong?

I guess they can disagree. I happen to think they all went Bushlite.

is between Clark, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, Kucinich, Lieberman, Mosely Braun, and Sharpton.

Who of those candidates is the real 'Bush-lite'?

Oh, 20 years in the Senate isn't enough for Kerry to make up his own damn mind?? He needs to listen to a 'party elder'? Would that be one of the do-nothing Washington insiders who have been in Congress for decades and gotten nothing done? Why would you want a Senator to listen to one of them?

You think they went Bushlite because that's what Howard told you to think.

Dean is no longer viable to me due to the amount of hatred he has created.

Kerry is still viable but I despise his actions regarding the Iraq war vote. He proved he was more willing to go with political expedience than protecting the Constitution. Even Republican Chafee recognized the danger of the resolution.

Kerry's 20 years of experience only gave him the ability to 'present the thinnest target.'

I just don't think Kerry voted on expedience. I think that because I went back and read various testimony he had made from the late nineties. I think that he seriously believed there was room for more diplomacy before GW1. I think he changed his mind over the course of the 90's, particularly after finding out how advanced the nuclear program had been. And I think at the time of the vote, his intention was to send a unified voice to the UN that the U.S. insisted Saddam be disarmed. And not just because of Saddam, but so the UN could have strengh when it confronted other countries with nuclear weapons. George Bush fucked it up royally.

And while I'm not completely happy with this vote, I understand it. But I support Kerry more for his overall solutions for the ME, then just this one vote.

Anyway, what other issues are you considering in your decision? I like Edwards and Gephardt both. In fact, the more I find out about what Gephardt has done in his career, the more I like him. He'd be a good choice, but I'm not sure he could beat Bush because he really is an old-time Democrat. Edwards seems like an old-time Democrat who talks in a new way so that those poor, struggling Republicans might figure out why they're really struggling. We've got to wake those people up! I'm just not sure he's got enough experience to make people confident about his ability to keep the country safe and deal with international terrorism. And Dennis, well, Dennis has chosen to present his views in a platform of idealism. Had he chosen to present them a little more pragmatically, he might be going further. So I like them all for various reasons, but when I look at who has the least obstacles to overcome against Bush, Kerry is the obvious choice to me.

I trust my entire party to establish a platform. I want a pragmatist first and foremost. I want someone who has executive experience in an elected capacity (this eliminates Clark and Sharpton, it should eliminate Kerry as well, but his years of service as a Senator gives him a reprieve) and someone who has been elected to the same position multiple times (this eliminates Braun).

He/She needs to be able to work with the opposition party because whoever gets elected won't have a large majority in Congress and the opposition party is going to pull every dirty trick in the book to derail any legislation they think is too far left.

I don't want anyone so committed to a cause that he cannot reevaluate his/her position when new evidence has been made available.

You trust the party to establish a platform??? I vote in the primaries on my issues so that the platform has a chance of being something I want to live with.

Pragmatic, my god, I've been calling Kerry a pragmatic liberal for months now. Wind energy is a great example. He's 100% for it, but you really can't 'plop windmills down just anywhere'. There are other environmental and economic factors to be considered and he's pragmatic about it.

Here's what he says about his first campaign. Not human?

"I can understand people who were pissed at me," Kerry says today of the congressional run. "I came into the district, crash, `Here I am.' There was a brashness to it. ... If I had known what I knew today about politics, I'm not sure I would have done it."

After he lost he first election, he went to law school and became a prosecutor. He's a survivor. When he was a prosecutor he was assigned to overhaul the office. "Kerry nearly tripled the staff, and many of the new hires were women . He launched initiatives that were innovative at the time: special units to prosecute white-collar and organized crime, programs to counsel rape victims and aid other crime victims and witnesses, and a system for fast-tracking priority cases to trial. He also directed the investigation that led to the first conviction of Somerville's Howie Winter, one of the state's notorious gangsters." He was also Lt. Governor of Massachusetts. Executive experience? I think so.

He also worked with John McCain on normalizing Vietnam relations and the MIA/POW issue, CAFE standards, and closing corporate welfare loopholes. He worked with Frist, yep Frist, on the Global AIDS Bill. He may not be a Max Baucus in that regard, but he does 'play well with others'. At the same time, he's known as bullheaded on certain issues and will not budge.

I just think he's the best candidate and anything the Republicans can sling at him, he has a history where he can sling it right back.

Here's a story on his first campaign and prosecutor history.
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061803.shtml

Any front runner is gonna generate passion, both good and bad. People are pissed that the Doctor from Vermont (who nobody thought would go anywhere) is kickin their guys ass.

Don't let it change your mind. It only strengthens my resolve.

Look, we've got a long road ahead, no matter who the nominee is, we can trash. So what's say, come on back!!!!

I'm just tired. By doing this, I'm divested from the rancor. People can rail against Dean supporters all they want know, call the Dean supporter as bad as anti-abortionists, worry that Dean supporters are going to slash their tires, etc. and I don't have to feel that negative drag on my psyche.

I support no one. Those who have finally knocked me loose from my support of Dean have the task of convincing me that one of these other fools are worthwhile to vote for.

All candidates who meet my basic criteria have a chance. Dean has a bigger hill to climb, though since my bias towards him is well known and documented. I'm still figuring out how I am going to go about this, but the fact of the matter is I'm more of the cynic anyway. My favorite muppet characters are the two old guys who don't like anything. I wasn't a good Dean supporter on here anyways and in real life, he already got my money, some of my time, and a lot of my sweat.

I think this will be healthy. I think everyone needs to step back and reevaluate the situation and see if they have accidentally put blinders on.

Their hatred of Dean has convinced me not to support him. The real question is, is there someone else worthy of my support?

nt

I disagreed with his vote.

By Paul J. Nyden
West Virginia Gazette
Friday, 27 September, 2002

Will Saddam Hussein unleash botulinum toxin, perhaps nature's deadliest poison, and other viruses and chemicals if the United States attacks Iraq?

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., posed this question to the Senate on Thursday, based on documents obtained from different federal agencies.

"We have a paper trail," Byrd said. "We not only know that Iraq has biological weapons, we know the type, the strain, and the batch number of the germs that may have been used to fashion those weapons. We know the dates they were shipped and the addresses to which they were shipped.

"We have in our hands the equivalent of a Betty Crocker cookbook of ingredients that the U.S. allowed Iraq to obtain and that may well have been used to concoct biological weapons."

<snippity>

more

Byrd said Congress must consider Bush's requests for new war powers "carefully, thoroughly, and on our own timetable ... and avoid the pressure to rush to judgment on such an important matter."

In conjunction with his filibuster against the resolution, I think it is clear that he felt the Senate was rushing, being pulled by Bush's rhetoric.

I'm off the Dean bandwagon. Anyone who generates this much hatred isn't worth supporting. It is better not to support anyone.

none of the other candidate inspire me. You people choose who will head the ticket, I'll vote for whomever it is.

And unless someone gives me a great reason, I won't be standing in the rain, getting sunburned, or fatgued for any of them. I'll just vote.

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

When he runs right back to the center in the GE. Dean pitching leftist ideals is like Pat Robertson talking about societal acceptance of gays.