Dean addresses the nation. Lays out Dem stance on Iraq.

"We don't want another wall with 55,000 names of courageous Americans who were let down by their Government."


Posted by Mainedem in LBN.
I thought it deserved a read and discussion here.

Saturday June 24th

Good morning. This is Governor Howard Dean.

Nearly four years into the war in Iraq, over 2500 brave American soldiers have been killed, more than 20,000 brave American soldiers have been wounded, and $2.5 billion dollars are being spent every week as sectarian violence continues. Corruption and fraud are rampant, and the overall quality of life for the Iraqi people has not improved. Religious fanatics harass women and business owners just yards from the green zone in Baghdad and renegade militia within the Iraqi army are fomenting civil war.

In the meantime, the Bush Administration has left Afghanistan exposed to a resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda; and taken its eye off the ball in places like North Korea and Iran which have now become greater threats.

Those are the facts on the ground.

The bottom line is that the Republicans don't have a plan. 'Stay the course' is not a plan. Saying the problems in Iraq will be left to the next President, is not a plan. Our troops deserve better.

Democrats are determined to set a different course for our Nation, to tell the truth to the American people, to save the lives of our American soldiers and keep America safe. We want to act now rather than let political wrangling lead to more dead and wounded Americans.

We will defend America, but we will be tough and smart.

A majority of democrats have called upon the President to change course in Iraq. Democrats have also offered a plan that asks the president to responsibly redeploy our troops. We believe that we ought to focus on training, logistics, and counter-terrorism, and we can do that with a redeployment of our troops.

The phased re-deployment strategy proposed by Democrats this week calls on the President to do the following:

· First, work with the Government of Iraq to begin a phased redeployment of United States troops from Iraq by the end of this year;

· Second, submit a plan to Congress by the end of 2006 with estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq;

· Third, we have also told the President that we demand accountability for the resources being spent in Iraq. The cost of the Iraq war will be at least one trillion dollars, enough to finance a health care program for every single American - including our veterans coming home from the war.

· Fourth, expedite the transition of United States forces in Iraq to a limited presence and mission of training, providing logistical support, protecting United States infrastructure and personnel, and participating in targeted counterterrorism activities.

· Finally, our plan recognizes that during and after the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq, the United States will need to sustain a non-military effort to actively support reconstruction, governance, and a durable political solution in Iraq.

The Iraqi leaders themselves have set a six-month goal for assuming their responsibility for security. Our proposal for the beginning of a phased redeployment by the end of this year fits the goals of Iraq's leaders very well.

We have asked Republicans of good will to come forward to support a policy that is good for America and good for our troops. And some have.

Democrats will continue to offer America a real change, a new direction for our country. We see a country in which honesty, openness and respect is restored to our government. We see an America where we are all on the same team again, working together to deal with problems American Families face, Defense, Security, Health Care, Jobs. We see an America where the Government does not question the patriotism of any American if they disagree with the President.

The parallels between the mistakes being made today in Iraq and the behavior of our government a generation ago are striking. Troops are sent to fight by an administration that refuses to listen to the advice of military leaders. The Administration decides it's ok to conceal information from the Congress and the American people. Promises like "stay the course" "Peace is at Hand" or "the insurgency is in its last throes" are made by an increasingly desperate Administration.

A majority of the American people don't believe the President is telling the truth, while the Administration and its supporters question the patriotism of veterans who disagree with them, accusing them of "cut and run".

And among the victims are brave American soldiers who are the targets of an insurgency because of failed political leadership and a lack of foresight and planning. We don't want another wall with 55,000 names of courageous Americans who were let down by their Government.

The words "cut and run" don't belong in this debate. That's a disservice to our courageous soldiers. This debate is about not making the same mistakes our Government made a generation ago.

Democrats believe it's time for a new direction in Iraq that's tough and smart, and we offer America a security strategy that's tough and smart.

This is Gov. Howard Dean proud of our troops, and proud to be part of a party offering America a new direction.

Link to AP Article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060624/ap_on_go_co/democra...

This should be repeated everywhere:

"In the meantime, the Bush Administration has left Afghanistan exposed to a resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda; and taken its eye off the ball in places like North Korea and Iran which have now become greater threats."

Cut and run, indeed.

No one wants to stay in Iraq except those making Money off of it.

OIL.

sent there to fight, and they don't want their kids to go, fight and die for our profit
and like it.

And they assume the solutions to Parents' problems are to get Kid's to enlist.

Their assumptions include that you are pathetic incompetent Parents.

until their candidates lose, then they have no trouble with a full investigation, recount, etc.

I agree 100%!

Amen Howard! I stand with you.

Julie

...realize they are being put on notice.

On TV, at DU, everywhere. Just like the attacks were going on here on Kerry, Murtha this week.

Perpetuating Death and Destruction. "Demons". Pro-Life is DEAD.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062400401.html

Now will come all the right wing blogs and anchors dashing forth to call him a crazy man.

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

they had plenty of opportunity to make deals. They refused to engage either, even when old Kimmy was begging for Bush to send Clinton to do the negotiating.

Bush nixed it. And turned a deaf ear to all the Korea and Iran experts advising since 2001 that engaging them both now will prevent military action down the road.

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

First, I do not accept any "phased redeployment," which is just a euphemism for "making it look like we're not in a hurry to leave." Absolutely nothing can be accomplished by staying longer than it takes to minimally pack up and leave-- nothing but more unnecessary death and destruction-- so there is simply no reason to "redeploy" over a period extending beyond six months, as in this statement.

This is the first, and biggest problem with all such "plans." It's a smokescreen for political cover, for keeping up appearances. We don't want to admit to being in the wrong, so we'll take our time about stopping the crime. Ultimately, that bit is more about covering the asses of politicians than about doing the right thing, and I simply cannot accept the deaths of more innocent Iraqis as the price of preserving the political dignity of preening American "leaders."

Second, Dean's plan implicitly recognizes a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq, hidden behind a new rationale. This might dress the PNAC plans for Iraq a little differently, but it maintains the essential goal of permanent U.S. hegemony. Dean's "non-military effort to actively support... the Iraqi government" will presumably be run from the new palace compound in Baghdad-- the embassy to end all embassies-- with logistical support from U.S. troops stationed at some of those permanent military bases in Iraq. It's ludicrous to believe that any truly non-military role for the U.S. is possible in an Iraq where Americans cannot travel around the block without armored convoys and air support.

Third, although it implies otherwise, Dean's statement presupposes that the puppet government beholden to the U.S. will continue to rule in Iraq. I call this the "Siagon deception." Without a continual military presence in Iraq-- either a home-rolled military dictatorship or a continued occupation-- the Iraqi government will be swept aside. The U.S. interests that the Dean statement implicitly acknowledges will be swept aside too, or will have to be reconsidered in a very different environment.

The truth is that America has terminally destabilized Iraq. Perhaps the goals that U.S. politicians pursue now might have been achieved under Saddam Hussein or some other strong central government, but they will never be attained under the chaos of insurrection and civil war. We fucked it up beyond repair. We need to recognize that and work within that framework-- not keep trying new flavors of the old PNAC dream of maintaining U.S. hegemony in the region through military or political coersion.

We must begin an immediate and unconditional removal of ALL U.S. personnel from Iraq. Abandon the bases, the embassy, the garrison zones, etc. We must face the fact that we are responsible for the chaos that will result in the vacuum we leave behind, and perhaps try to make reparations later.

Our Democrats this week have been speaking from the real world.

:shrug:

On edit: Dean's statement presupposes that there are acceptable reasons for the U.S. to be in Iraq to begin with, for slowing the withdrawal of troops and ultimately for maintaining a more-or-less permanent U.S. presence in Iraq. I think that reasoning is utterly bankrupt. It's political ass covering. Is that the "real world" you speak of?

The occupation is simply unsustainable not because of logistical concerns but because it's wrong.

Isn't that a Republican Axiom older than dirt?

...but that went totally over my head. If you're objecting that my reasons for rejecting the Dean statement have no merit, you've done so without providing any reasons so I'll note your objection but there's not much to say beyond that. If you're suggesting that Dean's proposals are meritless, then we probably agree, although it's hard to tell. If you're suggesting that Dean's statement has merits that I missed, you might want to enumerate them more clearly.

I agree with MF about dealing within the constraints of reality. Your objections to Dean's statement put you squarely in the Panglossian school of politics. In other words, we have to do what we can realistically to get out of Iraq. A proposal that would immediately be rejected by nearly all lawmakers and the majority of Americans, borders on the senseless.

..."would immediately be rejected by... the majority of Americans." I disagree wholeheartedly. Quite the opposite, in fact-- current polling suggests that a great national sigh of relief would result. Followed, of course, by a groundswell of demand to know WHY the war happened in the first place, why political leaders in Congress supported it, and why it blundered on for as long as it did without any clear direction. MAYBE we might even get to the point of discussing the underlying objectives that everyone in Congress is avoiding, e.g. long term neocon political strategy.

It's the latter effect that prevents such an immediate withdrawal, the questions that would have to be answered. I agree with you that lawmakers are fighting tooth and nail to avoid the fallout that an immediate withdrawal would create. Trouble is, in my book they deserve it, and more, so I don't have a great deal of sympathy for their plight.

I don't think it's at all Panglossian to suggest that the only rational, moral, and ultimately legal strategy is an immediate withdrawal. Suggesting that it's unrealistic is simply an easy way to avoid dealing with the moral and ethical issues of staying in Iraq any longer than necessary to effect an orderly evacuation. Whether I'm Panglossian or not doesn't make a damn bit of difference in the end-- the motives of U.S. politicians are still utterly self-serving, U.S. foreign policy in Iraq is still fundamentally criminal, and the U.S. is still going to have to face the consequences eventually. What we see now, in terms of political leadership, is largely a collective herd maneuver to avoid responsibility for this debacle.

on edit-- one other thing to note is that Dean's current position would have been described as Panglossian two years ago-- now it's the democrats rallying cry. Sort of. I say, let's skip the war crimes that separate today's "political reality" from next year's desperate thrashings to justify further crimes and just end the thing. Maybe even face the issues of responsibility afterward.

opinion on Iraq. Alas, I fear you're not. Recent polls indicate that roughly 60% of Americans believe it was a mistake to go to war; there's no such majority regarding what to do now. I think it's fair to say that Americans, by and large, are pretty muddled concerning the way forward.

I disagree that the ONLY moral or rational approach is immediate withdrawal in a helter skelter manner, and you suggested that we should get out as quickly as we can pack our bags. A methodical withdrawal over a period of months, perhaps 6-8, strikes me as a far better approach. An immediate withdrawal will create a vacume and I fear the violence that follows will be worse even, than what we've seen to date. So although, I'd like to see us get out quicker than Dean's suggesting, an overly hasty, and thus messy withdrawal, doesn't strike me as the best solution.

I would agree with you if there was any way to believe that Iraq will improve during the next six months, say. If that were the case I might be able to support a lengthier withdrawal.

But take that question back six months ago. Iraq has only sunk deeper into chaos during the interim since then. Your suggestion presumes that there is some steady progress toward improvement and that has simply not been the case, nor is there any indication that there will be any as long as the U.S. occupation remains in effect.

Six months ago, a year ago-- people made the same argument you're making now: we need to stay a little while longer so we won't leave Iraq in a shambles. Yet look where we are six months later-- we're still facing that same demon, and it's only gotten bigger. I think it will be WORSE in 6-8 mos, not better.

At some point we have to face reality in Iraq instead of political faux reality on Capital Hill. The Iraq war is a clusterfuck of epic proportions and it is getting steadily worse. Yes, it will get even worse after we withdraw, but that will happen whether we withdraw today or next year. Unless you're willing to accept the republican argument that "we have to stay until everything is OK" or some permutation of that-- essentially an open ended committment in Iraq-- there is simply no factual justification for remaining any longer than it takes to evacuate now. Six months, a year-- they're just arbitrary dates chosen to avoid the hard truths in the present, and we'll be facing the same truths when we reach those milestones, except that more will have died and greater damage will have been done. The only justifications being put forward are either sentimental or for political self preservation. Both are morally bankrupt in this situation.

i.e. no Plan for the Return of Our Troops.

And, by inference, anything else that doesn't stand (as much as possible) on its own merits. If the foo shits . . . I don't particularly care whether you "wear" it or not, since the assumption is that you are the determiner of that.

The Iraqi security forces-- I can't decide whether they're the new ARVN or the new SAVAK.

I agree with the critic of Dean (Mike C, above) that this formulation is inadequate as a policy prescription. And I am not sure about the first responses to the critic on this thread that suggest that is politically "unrealistic" to insist upon a complete withdrawal of American troops by the end of the year -- or some other certain date. The idea got nowhwere fast in the Senate; I suspect that it might play a little better in Peoria at this point in time. Public opinion is never static, and we are in the early stages of another Rovian PR offensive trying to put lipstick on the pig of the Iraq War. So it is hard to say for certain how well a unified Democratic position on getting the hell out of Iraq would play.

I disagree, however, with the critic's implication that Dean should be faulted for advancing this particular statement. His portfolio is only the organizational front person for the Democratic Party. When only a quarter of Democractic Senators have the guts and/or vision to support Feingold and Kerry on the pull-out, it goes far beyond his limited authority to commit the Party Apparatus to that position.

Instead, he has done a pretty good job of herding the goldfish of Democratic "ideas" into a coherent contrast to the GOP. At the very least, our candidates have to be able to suggest to the voters this November that a Democratic victory will deliver a change in policy on Iraq. While I personally doubt that US ground troops are accomplishing anything of value, and are probably doing more harm than good right now -- even I would prefer to see the Iraqi government have a chance to establish some kind of order and normalcy. I doubt that very many Americans would respond favorably to the reductionist notion of just not caring about what happens next in Iraq -- and that is where Rove is going with his "cut and run" sound bite.

My only quibble with Dean's statement is that I wish he had not even mentioned the phrase at all. We do not need for it to be repeated.



On another board I have done what felt like the work of Sisyphus arguing with lefties and greenies about the lameness of Democratic politicians. It is really dispiriting to see how some very energetic activists refuse to work on changing the political reality perceived by politicians because they wish the politicians had the "guts" and/or the "vision" to ignore the reality they see from their Seat in Congress.

The Elected Democrats know what they have had to do to raise money -- while the activists blithely complain about how they shouldn't "cave in" to corporate moneychangers. There are lots of brave political souls who won't pander for campaign money -- just not very many of them get elected.

The Elected Democrats know what the editors and punditocracy can and will do to their exquistely crafted "message" -- while the activists sneer at the "dems" who can't get a coherent message out.


Dean has made a fabulous start on his promise to liberate Democratic candidates from having ONLY corporate donations as a reliable source of the big money it takes to buy television time and have a chance to win.

Changing "political reality" is a lot harder than it looks.

I think we should be telling the Senators who supported Feingold-Kerry that we support them, and we should be urging the Senators who declined to get on board that we want them to catch up with the bandwagon. Most importantly, we activists need to keep pressing the issue to the general public. I think it can be a winner.

Bitching at our allies who aren't yet with us is counterproductive.

On another board I have done what felt like the work of Sisyphus arguing with lefties and greenies about the lameness of Democratic politicians. It is really dispiriting to see how some very energetic activists refuse to work on changing the political reality perceived by politicians because they wish the politicians had the "guts" and/or the "vision" to ignore the reality they see from their Seat in Congress.

The Elected Democrats know what they have had to do to raise money -- while the activists blithely complain about how they shouldn't "cave in" to corporate moneychangers. There are lots of brave political souls who won't pander for campaign money -- just not very many of them get elected.

The Elected Democrats know what the editors and punditocracy can and will do to their exquistely crafted "message" -- while the activists sneer at the "dems" who can't get a coherent message out.


Dean has made a fabulous start on his promise to liberate Democratic candidates from having ONLY corporate donations as a reliable source of the big money it takes to buy television time and have a chance to win.

Changing "political reality" is a lot harder than it looks.

I think we should be telling the Senators who supported Feingold-Kerry that we support them, and we should be urging the Senators who declined to get on board that we want them to catch up with the bandwagon. Most importantly, we activists need to keep pressing the issue to the general public. I think it can be a winner.

Bitching at our allies who aren't yet with us is counterproductive.

Bravo!!! Well stated. I've long held these views that you so effectively articulate here.

:toast:

Julie

and we are not doing that yet. We are providing some support, but the goal of having the million giving 20 a month is not near fruition.

It would be so easy to provide that 20 million a month, which would give more "reality" to what we want.

Money talks.

:toast:

This is what we need to be doing. :thumbsup:

to advocate last night on Letterman.

Personally, I'd like to get out tomorrow but I know that's not viable.

But, ASAP..so more Soldiers & innocent Iraqis don't die for bushLIES.

been on the same page in regard to Iraq? I think so. No surprise here. :-)

Julie