Nation: Dean: No Dem Position on Gitmo

The Punditry At Work, Dumbing Down and Misinforming America
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2602


11/10/2005

Senate Passes Kerry Amendment Demanding Accountability on Secret Prisons
Kerry Legislative Victory Forces Administration to Facilitate Congressional Oversight
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=248661


Kerry says Rumsfeld should resign over Iraq inmate abuse
Criticizes Bush for not being aware
By Glen Johnson, Globe Staff | May 7, 2004
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/05/07/kerry_says_rumsfeld_should_resign_over_iraq_inmate_abuse/


Floor speech:

No. 10, the war in Iraq has undermined the basic rule of international law that protects captured Americans. The Geneva Conventions are supposed to protect our forces, but the brutal interrogation techniques used at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq have lowered the bar for treatment of POWs and endangered our soldiers throughout the world.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2004_record&page=S9774&position=all



So the question now is did Dean actually say this and is it being taken out of context? How is this possible?

I think it's just an example of Dems being afraid of being tarred as being "weak on national security."

It's sad.

to be against inhuman torture? The Democratic parties position should be made clear.
I also question why the media is bring this up now? Surely it is not just to support Kline's book.

They don't see what is going on at Gitmo as torture.

It's an opinion blog, obviously, and hides behind anonymity to cast aspersions. The flat out lie about Kerry that leads it off (just cause he didn't mention Gitmor or Abu Graib in the debates does not mean he ignored then) leads into a blatant misrepresentation:

Dean says "There are so many issues" and The Nation says "They talk too much about issues and not enough about broad concepts" -- except the talk about specific issues are spotlights that illuminate the broad concepts. It's the same as when Reagan started having 'ordinary Joes' seated with Nancy at the State of the Union, so he could point out that individual and make a broad point based on that particular.

Of course, if a Dem starts talking broad issues, The Nation would be saying -- They have no particulars to back them up - They're just blowing smoke.

Fuck him.

this Yahoo piece. Also there was no editorial attribution -- just the lead in saying "The Nation".

Maybe I didn't search far enough, but this seemed so unlike a liberal newsmagazine that I went off on a short rant.

If this is that liberal newsmagazine, however, I still say fuck them. It still sounds like a deliberate misrepresentation to me.

ON EDIT --

I did go back and did find that opinion column, with it's proper editorial attribution. I still think it sucks.

Many of us are trying to stay out of the attacks on Kerry that are going on here. Most of us know Joe Klein is worthless, and is not worthy of being called a journalist. I think we all know Kerry is opposed to torture, just like Dean is.

There may not be a torture policy stated in the party, and maybe there should be. But posting something about Dean because someone attacked Kerry is just not fair. I won't link, though you did.

Dean has often spoken out about this issue on TV and in speeches. I have one example, and I guess I could find more. But Ari Berman made it sound like Dean was hapless on this issue....probably not realizing the New Democrats are now making big move to control policy and sidestep the DNC. Dean is not allowed to set policy, they say...but they can supercede him. Read between the lines. He said there was not a party policy...and if you don't know it...the National Security policy came from the Third Way. Bob Rubin is setting the economic policy through the Brookings Institute, and it looks like Simon Rosenberg's New Democrats is taking over the Hispanic project...not asking.

One example of things he has said since 2004:

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Dean_Interview_Wolf_Blitzer_deanonly_Jun27_2004.htm
BLITZER: Do you accept the president's word?

DEAN: Well, yes, I do accept that the president didn't order anybody to be tortured, but I think some of the people who work for him did. I think the Justice Department, clearly, with that memo, is just outrageous, saying that torture could be used by the United States if we wished to because these people were not subject to the Geneva Convention.

That is a disgrace and embarrassment. And it's a typical kind of thing that comes out from overzealous people who are committed to peculiar right wing ideologies within the American mainstream of what judicial thought is.

I think a lot of the things that happened at Abu Ghraib are because of what the president did, not because he ordered torture -- I'd think that I'd be very surprised to find that -- but because we have a mercenary army of 20,000 people over there who are not under the control of the American military.

The chain of command was not clear at Abu Ghraib, and the civilian influence of privately hired people ought not to be running our interrogation.

This administration has an obsession with privatization. When you start privatizing military functions, you break down the chain of command, and this is the kind of thing that happens. So I think the president has a great deal of responsibility for what went on, although I doubt very much that he ordered it directly. But because he is running an operation that is not being run well."

from the supposedly "Liberal" Democratic Think Tank (but very centrist), "Center for American Progress" are setting the rest of the policy for the Democrats. You should have heard them cower before Joe DiGenova on Diane Reem's show this week.

DLC...ALL THE WAY! It's very hard for Dean to step on their toes given that they didn't want him to Chair the DNC...but DEAN IS DOING A GREAT JOB! His statements show how he nuances himself away from them just enough for them not to totally trash him, but enough for us on the Left to feel we can still, for now, be Democrats.

after reading The Hill article. Then I realized they can set policy up their butts, but they need people on board to implement it.

Actually, Dean is walking a very fine line. But he will know when to step off that line, I think.

that there is a huge wing of activists who care deeply about the Parties direction who are out here, mad as hell. It's not going to be easy to wrest policy from the more entrenched DLC'ers.. There are others besides Dean and Gore...and at some time the balance will tip. That gives me hope...I think it will happen after the Mid-Terms. Fingers crossed, anyway.

got the impression it was just too note that the press seems to be making an issue of this all of a sudden. That's my opinion anyway. I think we all realize Gov. Dean would not support this horrible torture. It is just interesting the media asked this an more than likely took a comment out of context.

getting the shaft in the article. I think the OP was just questioning what was going on with this kind of reporting. But it's Klein after all, so what do we expect.

Dean is mentioned in the OP, as well as Kerry, but I don't think the OP meant it as a slam against Dean, just an attack on the Party itself by the "liberal" media.

If you just glance at the OP I could see how one might think it was something negative on Dean, but then when I read it more fully, I realized not. Shows the value of reading the whole thing before I post, eh?

to disparage Dr. Dean. I've seen enough attributed quotes in MSM that were completely taken out of context or not even real. Who would believe the Democratic Party, any decent human being, would have no position on torture?

So, what the hell is up? Has the media become that desperate in its attempt to shill for the GOP and misrepresent the Democratic Party's position?

This makes no sense.

It is not just torture. They had no policy on the Iraq, they took no stands on many issues...no real policy.

The Nation is one of the magazines I am watching about presenting just one side of issues. I have a subscription, but I may not renew it this time. They did it today with this issue. Ari Berman made it sound like Dean was not opposed to torture, that the party wasn't, and he quoted Joel Klein on Kerry...which was not needed, making it sound like Kerry wasn't opposed.

DU is being hit from both sides lately. The DLC side which includes the Third Way, the DLC, the PPI and Rosenberg's New Dems Network (the PAC for the DLC) is determined to control the party message. They are literally taking it over. Thus, that may have been what Dean meant....that they did not talk about it with him.

Also here is the group that is going to make a move for 3rd party soon, in fact some already have. It is why I stick with DFA and the DNC, I trust them not to hurt the party anymore than it has been hurt.

I can not go along with that 3rd party idea right now, as there is too much intolerance among the ranks of those groups right now. They tolerate no one deviating from the issues they espouse. You can not win at all that way.

Life is made of compromises and tolerating differences. DU is caught in the middle. I do not think we are helping each other here by attacking Kerry or Edwards or Dean or anyone. I don't think your post was meant that way per se, but I think it was because of the constant attacks on Kerry here lately.

I can defend Kerry without attacking other Democrats.

And you're wrong: Democrats don't have policy, they have positions or stances. The issues section of all the party organizations' websites, including the DNC's, provides information on where the Democrats stand on an issue. Real Security is a position, which was culled from the very similar positions advanced by Democratic leaders. It is not policy.

The idea that a Democrat will become president this will become policy is ridiculous. It is a position. Just as the GOP's stances on the issues are positions. They are not Bush's policies.

I give up.

I was saying I understood.

Maybe you can explain what part of it I took out of context? Or maybe this is not directed at me?

You should be able to recognize by now that I am not your enemy. It is not those of us who supported Dean previously who are your enemies....if in fact you guys have enemies here.

I was trying to explain to you that DU is caught in the middle of two extremes with agendas. One is the corporate side on the right which pretty much controls our party now. The other is on the left, sort of...though there are too many stances to grab hold of and hold on to.

I have tried to make friends with your group, as we supported Kerry and worked for him. You make it hard. You linked to this post for support from your group. And looky here, I tried to fair and ain't no way.

It sounds like they might be going after the Dem Party from the other side.

But I'd like to know if there is a communication problem with Dean, Pelosi and Reid. Do they get along?

I think there is a problem with the ones you mentioned as well as the traditional party leaders who don't want to cede power to the grassroots. Remember that Reid and Pelosi recently met with Dean to get him to give more money for their incumbents...he told them no he was building the party in 50 states now.

Dean has always said he wanted to cede power, to let it come from the ground up. That is a hard philosophy for traditional Democrats to understand. We have problems locally in the same way. They don't want to power to come from the bottom up, they want to keep it top down. It is easier that way, but it does not bring change.

Yes, I think there is a problem with the party not wanting to give up the power to set the message and the policy. They may have to get over that.

unified message, merely because they just hadn't gotten together to iron one out, not because all three of them didn't have an opinion.

I'm not sure what the point was here either. Kerry has opposed Gitmo, but I remember a comment from Pelosi about how these prisoners would be wizened old men before we decided the war on "terror" was over. You can't hold people indefinitely.

I'm more concerned that it sounds like a communication problem. I'd like to know why. Are Reid and Pelosi still treating Dean like an outsider?

I don't think it has anything to do with a communications problem. I think it's a deliberate twisting and framing of the statement by this author.

The piece she posted smears BOTH Kerry and Dean, in that order. Obviously the reason Prosense posted it was to BEBUNK it - we've been finding the 2004 Kerry stuff which refutes Klein's claim over in the Kerry group. I doubt the Dean quote is anymore accurate.

The stuff is out there and it needs to be attacked. The idea that the Democrats were silent on Gitmo forgets the firestorm when Durbin brought the issue up. This really is a double edge sword that is trying to pit liberals against liberals. The RW really doesn't care about these accusations. We do - they want us to criticize our leaders for not speaking up, when they did speak up, pushing them to more aggressively speak up. Why? The moderates who are leaning at this point would prefer not to believe this.

Remember Joe Klein also made some comment that the Democrats could lose America because they talk like they hate America. Then he faults Kerry inaccurately for never speaking up about torture. (Kerry simply had to say comply with international law and the Geneva conventions - which he did it the debates. In 1971, he spoke of atrocities and policies that broke the Geneva conventions - with the RW repeating his anti-war 1971 words, there wasn't a soul in this country who could reasonably have thought Kerry condoned torture.)

Guess I don't word things perfectly or something.

It seems some people on the left insist taking Democrats out of context.

This morning, it was something Clark said on FOX that was taken totally out of context. It is most likely the same here.

Note: Here is the link at the Nation, if somebody wants to post an answer.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15

Dean was not asked HIS position on Guantanamo. He was speaking on behalf of the party. Rather than give a mealy-mouthed answer full of platitudes, he was refreshingly honest and basically said "hey, I don't know what our position is, we've never sat down and set a party position."

Dean was candid and did not spin it, and I appreciate it. This is a good example of why there is value in attempting to find bottom line areas of agreement that Democrats can all point to on important issues. Individual Democrats can take differing or stronger positions than the overall Party unity position, but having a unity position helps show that the Democrats have clear differences with Republicans, and that we are able to unite behind core principles. It signals that we are ready to govern if we are returned to majority status, which is a critical political message to be sending out prior to the 2006 Elections.

This is what Democrats did regarding National Security last week when the Party issued a joint Statement. Of course it was more vague than what an individual Democrat like Biden or Kerry is able to say with his own individual proposal, but noting that misses the point. A consensus statement will always be more general than an individual statement, but it remains important to have. Dean really could have used one regarding Guantanamo if we only had one.

you wind up spoon feeding their own fears and prejudices right back into their mouths via the focus group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x915967#916198

There is just too much of this here on all topics. It starts with one person then others jump in.

It is overboard.

on the OP? The article?

I was showing you the how the attacks are done here, and you get mad at me.

So be it, my friend.

I posted you a response above, and I hereby officially totally give up. I tried to stay out of criticisms of Kerry, because I think they are harmful to all of us in the party.

But that does not matter, I fear.

I don't see any of this as Dean's fault, though he gets blamed anyway.

Poor Dem leadership in Congress leaves Dean and the entire party vulnerable to attack.

Dean isn't allowed to make policy for the party. I suspect he's tried to get Dem leaders to develop a policy and message on this issue without success.

Policy-making by focus group as opposed to doing what's right, what's legal, what's ethical is the major achilles heel for Dem leaders in Congress.

I suspect if you let Dean decide this one, he would have come out with a clear position on the issue. But, alas, they don't let him do that.

We need new Dem leaders in Congress, period.

in the run up to the war, in promulgating propaganda pieces and their cover up on a catalogue of serious stories that either has not been reported or if mentioned at all, deserved and required amplification.

Having said that, Kerry should have taken this story alone and ran with it like there was no other issue more important.. he should have used the bullhorn in the campaign and pointed to it with loud emphasis and sharp critisim - he should have used that to wack down the repukes really hard and often - it should have been a daily rant using the same level of viciousness as Roves's most successful product, like the swiftboaters..

Kerry played the campaign as the polite statesmen, probably thinking that should have been enough to win the election... Klein is wrong about our electorate - en masse there is a level of utter stupidity in our electorate which is why in part Bush could have ever had high popular polling numbers, when most of the world can see immediately that Bush is a complete and utter moron, and imbicile and so are his loyal followers.

I think Kerry hoped that there were more intelligent thinking people in our country - at least enough to out number the kool aid drinking idiot red necks and fundies by a huge margin.

But there are lot of other factors that are in play with "election results" - massive election fraud, and a War profitteering media that really must be dealt with before the other factors can be better managed with more rational, and a better reasoned counter veiling force and message can possibly be "catapulted"... Until we can get a more honest Fourth Estate in this country, we're going to need to play hard ball campaigns just like these ruthless bastards do.. if any message we want to convey can cut through the layers of bullshit info-tainment mascarading as public affairs, "news and analysis".

on edit: i should mention that Naomi Klein (no relation to Joe Klein i don't think) who is a serious progressive and is an incredible journalist, writes for the Nation and other progressive publications, said the very same thing that Joe Klein is quoted as saying.. Naomi Klein mentions it in interviews in documentarys and speeches i've heard her say in person - Throughout Kerry's entire campaign, the words Abu Ghraib and Torture was not mentioned and was not allowed to be mentioned on the campaign trail

I didn't recall whether or not Kerry had actually mentioned Abu Ghraib or not, it appears that he did refer to in interviews - and that maybe the distinction that is being made... i don't know.. :shrug:

:cry: We must close down that torture facility.

Looks like a lot of time and effort is being made to blame Democrats for the sins of Republicans, such as blaming Dems for the outrageous immigration bill that the House passed.

Before you know it, Democrats are going to be blamed for maneuvering Bush into attacking Iraq.

after all, Klein thinks we "hate America".

Why did you vote to authorize the War? Why didn't you know the intelligence was fabricated, when 50% of americans saw that it was? blah blah blah blah..