"Out of the Mainstream? Hardly" By Howard Dean (notes media lies)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16656-2003Dec19.html


This is a response to
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10995&JServSessionIdr006=job2nqxsw3.app194a&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1301

Which had the WP saying in an article

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11001&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1001

followed by lies in an editorial that Dean was an op-ed response to:

washingtonpost.com
Out of the Mainstream? Hardly
By Howard Dean

Sunday, December 21, 2003; Page B07
The Post's Dec. 18 editorial discussing my recent foreign policy speech <"Beyond the Mainstream"> badly misrepresents both my position and the central argument in the coming election on how best to strengthen America's security.
To start: The Post repeatedly misstates my views. For example, I support missile defense efforts that make us more secure; I oppose deployment of any system not yet proven to work. I favor active talks with North Korea, backed by the threat of force, rather than a stubborn refusal to engage that has allowed the situation to become more dangerous by the day. And the role I support for the National Guard is hardly "radical"; it was endorsed by the bipartisan Hart-Rudman commission and in fact is enshrined in our Constitution (Section 8, Clause 15).
More important, The Post's editorial comes close to equating the Bush administration's foreign policy -- including its signature doctrine of "preemptive war" -- with the American foreign policy mainstream. In fact, the Bush agenda represents a radical departure from decades of bipartisan consensus on the appropriate use of U.S. power and our leadership in the world community.
From its derisive treatment of allies to its rejection of important global agreements, this administration has favored a go-it-alone approach and a determination to use force as its weapon of first resort. Its approach has alienated friends and bolstered foes. Its agenda isolates the United States, placing responsibility for all the world's problems in our hands, and runs counter to America's traditions as a republic.
By contrast, my national security policy reflects the best of our mainstream tradition. I believe the United States must exercise leadership by working with allies and partners to advance common interests, rather than advancing our power unilaterally.
My program is clear. First, we must strengthen our military and intelligence, ensure that our troops have the best training and equipment and keep our promises about pay and benefits.
Second, we must rebuild our alliances, badly damaged by the current administration. Every president since World War II, until now, has worked effectively with our allies and partners, because each believed this was the best way to safeguard security. Established alliances, which train and plan together over decades, are better at waging combat and building peace than makeshift coalitions of the willing.
Third, we must make our top priorities defeating the terrorists who have attacked America and preventing the most deadly weapons of all -- nuclear, chemical and biological -- from falling into their hands. We must bolster these priorities with improved Special Forces, better intelligence coordination and dramatically enhanced homeland security.
We need a global alliance to defeat terrorism that will draw on the strengths of allies and partners to destroy terrorist networks. And I will build, with our allies, a $60 billion global fund to combat weapons of mass destruction.
Fourth, advancing American interests requires greater engagement with developing nations on investment, trade, aid and public health.
This is a national security policy that honors the best of America's traditions. It is a clear contrast to a policy centered on the misguided doctrine of unilateral preemption.
The reasons I opposed the war in Iraq are clear. In the fall of 2002, Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat to America. The administration had not (and still has not) presented clear evidence that Hussein was on the verge of attacking his neighbors or threatening the United States or the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction or supporting al Qaeda. The administration's failures to mobilize allies and plan effectively for the war's aftermath suggested difficulties ahead.
It is just as important that this president failed to level with the American people about the costs or potential consequences or about the nature of the threat. Our democratic tradition, our mainstream values, demand that government be open and honest with its governed. The consequences of the war are becoming clear, even beyond the loss of life, even beyond the $150 billion price tag -- so far. Our resources -- military, intelligence, diplomatic -- are strained. Our alliances are frayed. Around the world, too many are now under the false impression that the American people are bent on global domination and war against Islam.
A critical presidential campaign is now underway. Americans face a choice between two very different views of our role in the world. My agenda returns security policy to its fundamental course: protecting Americans and advancing our values and interests -- democracy, freedom, opportunity and peace -- through effective partnerships and global leadership, as well as military strength.
The current administration strays wildly from this course and from the time-honored manner of pursuing it. In the end, I believe it will be clear who is in the mainstream and who is swimming against the tide of history.
The writer, a former governor of Vermont, seeks the Democratic nomination for president.

Could a moderator please DU mail me to edit the above down or feel free to edit the above down to DU limits!

Thanks

:-)

;-)