Was It "Courageous" For Dean To Oppose The Iraq War?

I've heard that term tossed around here quite a bit. That Dean made a bold, courageous stance by opposing the war with Iraq.

Personally, that's not exactly how I see it.

People get on Kerry because he voted for that resolution and say he wanted to have it both ways. Some (like me) believe that it was a political calculation designed to not fall into a "too liberal pacifist to be president" trap that Bush and Rove had set up for him and the other Democrats running from the Senate and House.

But Dean's opposition to the war was probably just as political as Kerry's support for it.

Dean was a nobody. A no name. An ex-governor of the second smallest state in the union who had launched a bid for the presidency with a staff small enough to fit in a phone booth.

Then came the war. And Dean, seeing that nearly all his fellow challengers had supported the war, decided to go against it. And he got on the Democrats who supported it as hard as he did Bush, who authorized it.

Meanwhile, lost in all the hooplah was a little footnote that Dean himself provided in the last candidate forum about his support for the 1991 Persion Gulf war.

A war which John Kerry, incidentally, opposed.

So maybe it's cool to say that Dean was right to oppose the war. I certainly believe he was.

But to say that it was a "courageous" or "bold" thing to do is just wrong. He was a fringe candidate whose candidacy would never have gotten off the ground without his opposition to the war. He HAD to oppose it to set himself apart.

That's just as much a political calculation as Kerry supporting the war. Neither stance was particularly bold or courageous, but this is modern day politics - nothing is bold or courageous anymore.

given all the lemming like behavior and ignorance before the war.

and for you to assume it has political motivations rather than moral is unfounded, unless you can show Dean is prone to flip-flopping based on public opinion (you can't).

I have to provide a smoking gun in order to make the connection between a frontrunner (Kerry) supporting a war and a lagbehind (Dean) opposing it?

I mean, if you are of the opinion that if the war never happened, Dean would have surged to the front of the pack based on his balanced budget proposals, be my guest.

Me personally, I doubt it.

I'm talking about your suggestion of WHY Dean opposed the war. The fact that his opposition is a major reason for his success is undeniable.

If you'll remember, all the political pundits wrote off Dean when he came out against the INVASION (not a war) and said he was toast, because surely no one could win what the the entire country behind this crap.

So, would voting to authorize the invasion like Kerry (who according to revisionist historians is now saying he was against it), make Dean courageous? Is that what you are saying makes kerry courageous....to do the POPULAR thing?

What claptrap

I said neither was "courageous".

If Kerry had come out against the war it would have been courageous because he was the perceived frontrunner.

Dean, as someone in the back of the pack, HAD to do something different.

Thus, he came out forcefully against the war.

I have no positive evidence that it was entirely politically motivated, but then again I have to positive evidence Kerry's support for the resolution was politically motivated.

Just a gut feeling.

and anyone who voted "for" it was F***ING WRONG. And anyone who voted "for" it because it might benefit them politically is F***ING DISGUSTING.

It was just honest. He said what he thought and it just so happened that he wound up speaking for so many of us who had nobody else. It could just as easily have happened that his stance turned out to be wildly unpopular and doomed his candidacy, but it didn't.

That one was much different than the second.

and of course the difference was GW1 had a justification.

It blows me away how many people don't see a fundamental difference between the two.

that GW1 killed more Iraqis. It certainly led to more deaths when you combine the war with the 10 years of sanctions.

And wasn't Kuwait sideways drilling into Iraq to get at their oil anyawy?

I think both wars sucked, personally.

international law doesn't really support invasion/conquest of other sovereign nations and Kuwait is an ally.

By your rationale * is justified with GW2 (wasn't Saddam a bad guy anyway?)

Bush One manufactured that damned war! If this is news to you, google for 'April Glaspie' and 'transcript'. She, on Baker's and Bush's orders, gave Hussein the green light to invade. When asked months later why, she said 'we didn't think he {Hussein} would take the whole thing'.

Bush One should have been impeached and he and Baker -at least- should have been done for war crimes. The only 'justification' was the one they manufactured so that he, like Ronnie Ray-gun, could have a nice war on his resume to take the heat off.

Ya got that right; this was entirely different. There is no comparison. Knowing what I do now about the Gulf War I, I don't know what I'd do, but then, there was no question: the community of nations has to live with respect for sovereignty or nothing means anything.

This war was just a vicious daddy-revenging resource grab of pure and applied evil.

Just to "set themselves apart?" Don't you think he could have picked a less risky issue to do that?

What does Dean have to do for you to say "gee, that took guts?" Fly in an Apache over Baghdad?

Oh, wait, I know Kerry already did that... :eyes:

and "support" the troops in Baghdad with a fighter escort from 30,000 feet </sarcasm>

that's the point. Dean was a nobody without the war. EVERYONE who I met at the meetup pointed to his opposition to the war as their basis of support for him.


It's cause and effect. Dean knows that in order to get the nomination he'd have to be different, that's just how getting noticed in a crowded primary field works.

Combined with Dean's solid record as a governor of a state for a decade, and you have a more qualified candidate than the other anti-war people like Kucinich, Braun or Sharpton.

... the whole premise of your argument is wrong.

Dean did not get the sudden surge of support he got for merely arguing against the war. He got it by going straight at Bush* - and personally at Bush*. IMHO.

Now, most of the rest of the candidates are trying that tack as well, but it just is hard to be convincing when just last week you were licking his jackboots.

on edit: And BTW, *that* was courageous.

of course he had little to lose going into it but if Bush's fantasies about tons and tons of tons of Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear death all earmarked for the US had any validity this war would still be popular.

Always seems better to me than political calculation that will result in massive destruction.

n/t

I believe Kerry supported action in the second war because he assumed (as we all were told) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and being a member of Congress and knowing that compromises must be made he came to the decision to support the resolution, that doesn't mean he supported the jack-assed war that actually took place.

I believe Dean was against the war because he believed honestly that it was a wrong-headed effort for us to get into. And he was right.

I think both men made a sincere decision based on the information available to them, plus personal judgements on what was best for the country.

I don't blame either for their choice, I blame Bush and his administration for lying.

takes a certain amount of courage IMHO .

It's muddied by the fact that he didn't have to stand up and be counted and that he would have backed some sort of U.N. mandated action, especially since the legislators who did vote for it were partially buffaloed by the assurances that the administration would do the same. We also don't know what staggering horseshit they saw from the administration behind closed doors to force their hand.

Having said that, though, he did stand up and make it an issue, and he did it when it was very unpopular.

Was there an element of calculation to it? Hell, there's an element of calculation to everything any of these folks do, and you wouldn't want it any other way. Zealotry and perfection have no place in politics at the Presidential level.

This was was so shockingly ugly and wrong that it will be looked down as the final loss of "goodness" of this country. This is a much more historical event than most of us realize, and it was ugly, wrong and stupid.

and Bob Graham.

I do think it was an honest opinion of Dean's, though. Not necessarily political.

... Lincoln Chaffee!

because he was actually called upon to put it on the line with a vote, whereas the others weren't. Admittedly, Graham voted against it too, but for different reasons. I'm still not all that clear on that.

Dean did go against what the polls said. As we can see by the way the majority voted, the polls said we the sheeple supported the war. Dean was pretty brave to go with the "focus groups" (as the Simian called us) and say the war was wrong.

Just cause he turned out to be right is no reason to discount the boldness of the move.

Julie

Their positions on those resolution guidelines were not that far apart. Either would have ended with war. It was best to contain Bush where one could. Keep the UN involved and limit the action to Iraq and cut off action that included Iran and Syria.

Can anyone imagine how hard it must be to get a good night's sleep knowing that Holy Joe has a hardon for you?
Jeez, Louise!

Dean saw an opportunity to position himself for support from the anti-war left who are so active in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, and he opted to pursue this ploy.

Dean came out of the gate criticizing his fellow Democratic candidates which is divisive and may, ultimately, be his downfall. It is hard to see how he can get the support of the party when he has trashed his own party so--all the more ironic as he is much more of a DLC centrist than his closest rival, John Kerry.

But just part of his overall personality. He called it like he saw it and never tried to backtrack.

I think once he saw he struck an untapped nerve in the country, he got louder about it. He took a risk, said Iraq was a mistake, and (unfortunately for everybody who has died, etc.) he turned out to be right.

However, in these times perhaps not being afraid to tell the truth against the Bush regime is "courageous"

except perhaps your understanding of other, more cynical politicians, and you may have noticed, but Dean doesn't fit the mold -- which is precisely why he's so popular and appealing to so many different categories of people.

What I've seen of Dean, and I've seen quite a lot I think, is that he does not make political calculations such as you describe -- which would be no better (just different) than choosing your policy based on polls -- as the basis of his policy positions.

If he ever does, he'll lose my support, and the support of many others. I personally don't think it's his nature to "do politics" the way you describe, and the support and positive reinforcement he's getting from hundreds of thousands of people flocking to him for just that reason are likely to strongly encourge him to continue to be just who and what he is, because that's eactly what is behind his secret for success.

Eloriel

my understanding of other, cynical politicians. On this, I think we differ.

I think Dean is just as cynical as all the rest of them, he just does a better job of hiding it.

What do I have to base that on?

The fact that he's running for president. And my gut.

Doesn't mean I don't like Dean. Doesn't mean I'm not going to walk through the fire for him.

Just means I don't see him as some angelic candidate who rises above the muck where all other Democrats trod.

who can prove their position to be morally right (especially when it comes to invading, killing and being killed ...all on BS trumped-up evidence) than a chorus of half-hearted, wave-the-flag me too types who are voting to show that (like thier prez) they can shoot first and ask questions later.

It's too bad they couldn't ask what happens after we shoot first?

The fact of the matter is that in GW1 Iraq was the aggressor, and couldn't be allowed to threaten Saudia Arabia and the Persian Gulf because that would mean endangering much of the world's energy supply.

Yes there were many screw-ups which lead to GW1 (Thank you GHWB) that, if handled diplomatically, could have averted the war. Those diplomatic blunders allowed the carnage that followed, 10 years of instability in the area, GW2 and Haliburton's pay-off.

In GW2 President Chimp is the aggressor intent on lying to the peasantry with comical warnings of Saddam attacking America with his invisible weapons and bio hordes. Pure BS.

Is it courageous or bold to stand up to this nonsense when one knows that they can be smeared as being "UnMurkan" by warmongering chickenhawks and their streetwalkers in the mainstream press?

Given the chance would you do the same thing if you and your career, or that of your loved ones, could be smeared without merit or due process, or would you remain silent and carry the water for the unelected fraud?

It was also bold for him to start calling out the Bush administration for destroying the economy and trampling on our liberties. We barely heard a peep from the then "frontrunners" about this until Dean started raisng hell.

I will admit that Kerry has probably been bolder though, what with his endorsing Freeper speech while running for the Democratic nomination. It took a pretty big pair for him to utter "gore invented the internet" and "get over it."

has to be used in two contexts.

1. What the statement actually is.

2. Where the person saying it is in the crowded field.

Bold comes from having a lot to lose, and speaking your mind.

Dean had nothing to lose by opposing the war, because he was already trailing the pack and had less resources to play catchup.

Like I said, I'm glad he did. I just wish people wouldn't make him out to be something he's not.

exactly does this show courage? Dean didn't actually DO anything.

Cast your mind back to the months before the war. Remember? Remember how bad it was? You think a guy running for President isn't bold to stand up to conventional wisdom AND the mainstream media during a time when the mainstream War Whoop gear-up was in full roar?

What in the name of God does a candidate have to do to impress you?

Jeez.

becuase he was trailing his rivals at the time in both money, resources, poll numbers and profile.

Opposing the war when you're the perceived frontrunner is bold. Like I said earlier, it's bold because you have a lot to lose. It's courageous when you take a stance that could cost you everything.

Dean couldn't lose anything at the time because he didn't HAVE anything to begin with.

And Dean does impress me. I'm just not going to faun over his bravery in what was obviously (to me) a part political calculation that worked out well for him.

He's behind, he's unknown, and so he stakes his ENTIRE CAMPAIGN on a breakout strategy that could have blown up in his face the second someone found a vat of anthrax over there. It paid off; he was right. That is bold. If it is politically, cynically bold, I really and truly don't give a fuck. Bold is bold. Bold wins.

Damn.

being against the war is not, in and of itself, bold.

It's not even cynically bold. It's opportunism.

Fortunate opportunism. Nice opportunism. Great opportunism.

But not boldness.

He wasn't John Kerry opposing the war and voting against the resolution.

THAT would have been bold, coming from where he was (and still is) in the field polls.

is causing you to reach for rhetoric that is baseless and, frankly, pretty deranged.

This comes from a fellow Kerry supporter, remember. Get a grip.

I like them equally, I just LEAN towards Kerry because I think he's more deserving.

I am by no means a Kerry ionclast.

But people want to make Dean out to be some hero for opposing the war. And while I appreciate that he did, and I think it's wonderful that our party has a major candidate who was anti-war, I just feel slighted that people:

(a) Think Dean thinks and behaves only in the most morally pure terms.
(b) Think Kerry is just as bad as Bush.
(c) Think (a) and (b) at the same time.

Being anti war was a calculated decision, I believe. And good for him, it worked. It could have blown up in his face, but it didn't. Hooray!

But to say that I'm deranged for stating that Dean isn't a hero is just wrong. Hey, we both like him. I'm just trying to put a little common sense and realism into the discussion about the man.

I never called him a hero. Put your strawman away. I said it was a bold decision. Any even vaguely astute political observer would almost certainly agree, unless they had an agenda.

and I consider myself an astute political observor.

Maybe not as experienced as you, but I know what's in front of my eyes.

And I take back the hero comment, you didn't call him that. My bad.

oh, and I don't have any agenda. Like I said, I like them both.

Apologies if I am mistaken, but these kinds of 'critiques' smell like a strafing from a guy whose candidate could have done a hell of a lot better in that place where the metal meets the meat.

My candidate, too.

Like I said, I'm in no way defending Kerry's vote. I said I felt they were both being opportunistic in their own ways.

I wish like HELL that Kerry had taken Dean's stance and opposed the war outright.

But he didn't.

And it sucks.

That I can't defend, and wouldn't try to.

"I wish like HELL that Kerry had taken Dean's stance and opposed the war outright. But he didn't. And it sucks. That I can't defend, and wouldn't try to."

So :wtf: was this thread all about in the first place?

politician. And a backhanded insult to Dean supporters who are so over the top in their Dean worship.

That it wasn't courageous for a guy who needed a position to separate himself from the pack by taking a position against the war.

Like I said, I wish Kerry had taken Dean's position because that would have been HELLA BALLSY and COURAGEOUS because Kerry had everything to lose.

:)

but it's merely calculating for Dean?

OK. Whatever. I am ejecting from this oddball conversation before I go insane.

But as I stated above, I think courage and boldness is part statement and part standing of the individual who makes the statement.

supporter called him a "hero" because of his anti-war stance. And also one for the "morally pure" thing too. You guys exaggerate sooooooo much.

Now you've evolved your original statement of "courageous" to "hero." Why is that I wonder?

the way some people talk about him he sounds like a superhero.

I still stand by my original (the original, original) statement.

:)

If you simply cannot tell the difference between saying an anti-war stance is "bold" and someone saying he is Superman who can do no wrong, well there's no hope.

Look up courageous in the dictionary.

I said I was sorry.

:)

"being against the war is not, in and of itself, bold."

No, but being against the war when the polls show 70% of Americans are for it is to say the least not wimpy. If you want to dissect everything Dean does and say it's just opportunism, why don't you explain to me the difference between taking a stand on an issue and opportunism.

The media wrote Dean off with his stand. Oh how foolish the little man is...another McGovern. Let's see how long it takes for the numbers to reach 70% against this war. Then will we be calling Dean a trickster who just played it anti-war for attention (even tho the attention was all NEGATIVE) and in retrospect will say Oh I meant I was for the war?

that a candidate whose tortured explanations for his Iraq war vote *cough*Kerry*cough* strikes me as far more politically opportunistic, given the climate, than a guy who just lays his nuts on the dashboard and lets the chips fall where they may.

Again, from a Kerry backer. Again, getteth thyself a grip.

<<<In my best DeNiro voice>>>

You sure don't sound like a Kerry backer somedays Will.

Me Dean fan.

Never a comfy collision.

Dean, sitting in last place in the polls, had all the convicions of a politican sitting in first place in the polls.

One had to take a stand to protect his lead.
The other had to take a stand to boost himself.

In a way, they both benefitted. Dean jumped and Kerry held.

Many were declaring Dean's candidacy dead after Bush "won" the Iraq war.

in the primaries, particularly Iowa and New Hampshire?

We made it well known to our Congressmen that we wanted to let the inspections work and work with the United Nations to disarm Saddam Hussein. Surely Dean was aware of this.

And what do you think of Dean's coming out of the gate criticizing his fellow Democratic candidates? Personally, I find it offensive and divisive to the hopes of the Democratic party to replace the imposter in the White House in 2004.

"Meanwhile, lost in all the hooplah was a little footnote that Dean himself provided in the last candidate forum about his support for the 1991 Persion Gulf war. A war which John Kerry, incidentally, opposed."

Hmmm. Kerry's losing points with me. He oppossed a war to defend international borders and confront international agresssion, yet he supports a war of questionable merit and far less urgency. Hmmmm.

to oppose a president and a war which was by and large supported by a majority of the American people. To stand up to a president who said he had overwhelming evidence that Iraq had WMD. It is never easy for people to go against the conventional wisdom or to stand up to a president on a foreign policy question and these people did it and I respect them for it.

"And Dean, seeing that nearly all his fellow challengers had supported the war, decided to go against it." One definition of courage has to do with standing up even when you're standing alone. You have no evidence to support the idea that Dean opposed the war for any reasons other than those he has stated.

It was bold. It was courageous. And better yet, it was right.

Speaking out against the invasion of Iraq was both morally sound and a big political risk for Dean.

It paid off politcally, true, but that doesn't make it less morally sound or change the fact that it was risky when he did it.

Courage would be standing up to the "War Machine" or the Military Industrial Complex. He has done nothing of the kind.

Now let's see:

Howard Dean is certainly NOT Anti-War... he supported the Afghanistan Invasion.

Unforturtanely, he's too much of a COWARD to talk about how the Pentagon is like a bloated tick... losing TRILLIONS of dollars out of its budget.

Example, he snipes at Kucinich for wanting to make the Pentagon's budget realistic ("I don't agree with Dennis about cutting the Pentagon budget when we're in the middle of a difficulty with terror attacks.")

Note: Pentagon spending has, practically speaking, NOTHING to do with defending ourselves against terrorism. So Dean is full of crap. If he was concerned with terrorism preparedness, he would have mentioned making sure that our first responders were adequately funded. NOT THE PENTAGON!

So big deal, Dean declared himself an anti Iraq war... he had nothing to lose and it's the only way he could have gotten any support from grass roots... while that's a smart political move... it has NOTHING to do with courage.

If you want to talk about courage, talk about Kucinich's willingness to cast a light onto the Pentagon's profligate spending.

was it a politically calculated move designed to set himself apart from the other candidates.

No, I don't believe that was why Dean opposed Bush's Iraq policy.

I think you are correct in your reasoning as to why Kerry voted for the resolution:

"a political calculation designed to not fall into a "too liberal pacifist to be president" trap that Bush and Rove had set up for him and the other Democrats running from the Senate and House."

That is one of the reasons why I support Dean over Kerry, true Dean was not caught in that particular trap, but the fact is that when Kerry found himself in that situation he voted to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. I remember the day of the vote, and the debate leading up to it. I was rooting for the Dems to get behind Byrd and the others who took their constitutional duty to be the branch to declare war seriously. Was it courageous for Kerry to give the executive branch the call? Nope. It was especially sad hearing him stand on the Senate floor giving all the good reasons against unilateral invasion and then voting to give away his say in the matter.

I think Kerry's problem is that he has been insulated by being safe in his senate seat. When Kerry has to recalculate to appeal nationally is when gets himself into trouble, he is prone to make misjudgements and go against what he knows is the right thing to do.

Dean has the advantage in that as Governer of Vermont, a state known for its unorthodox political scene, he has had plenty of practice at going against what is deemed as politically safe moves. I don't think there are any safe political calculations in Vermont.

As for the following part of your post, it sounds like you are grasping to rationalize your support of Kerry even though he voted for the resolution because Dean's opposition to it was equally calculated.

But to say that it was a "courageous" or "bold" thing to do is just wrong. He was a fringe candidate whose candidacy would never have gotten off the ground without his opposition to the war. He HAD to oppose it to set himself apart.

That's just as much a political calculation as Kerry supporting the war. Neither stance was particularly bold or courageous, but this is modern day politics - nothing is bold or courageous anymore.

I think Dean would say to you that it is perfectly reasonable for you to support a candidate that you have some differences with.

:)

but I also don't harp on Kerry as much as others have. After all, Kerry was given the speech by Bush and Co on how they were minutes away from nuking us right there on the spot.

He didn't have the advantage Dean had of being objective and out of the loop - sometimes being an insider can limit your scope. I'm surprised no one mentioned this.

But I think Dean was a hero, hands down.

You need to read it. It's about some of this nation's politicians, who were flawed human beings, seeing that popular opinion of their peers and the general public would lead this nation to betray itself and finding the courage to go against their peers and risk and sometimes even lose their political careers.

My favorite from this book was Edmund G. Ross, a Radical Republican from Kansas. He was the one vote who kept President Andrew Johnson from being impeached. He was under tremdous pressure from the Republicans to cave into their desire to bring down President Johnson, but Ross, who hated President Johnson, saw that the impeachment was wrong and would destroy the checks-and-balances that our Founding Fathers and Mothers created by making the Executive Branch subservient to the Legislative Branch. Ross knew that voting against impeachment would be the death knell of his career, but he did it anyway and saved our democracy at that time.

Howard Dean, who didn't have access to the intelligence reports that congress did, did pay attention to people, like Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi, who said in early September 2002 that the Bush Admin had no evidence to go to war against Saddam. They had evidence for continued sanctions, but not war. Former VP Al Gore, who was still considered a Prez candidate at the time, came out with his famous Sep. 23, 2002 speech on the Iraq and that was as clear a blueprint for any Democrat, in Congress or running for Prez, to not give Bush the power to declare war.

Obviously Dean listened to these people and their reasoned approach to the subject. Dean even quoted Al Gore's speech in his April 2003 op ed in Commondreams.org, so yeah, Dean's anti-war stance was calculated, but it was also principled, just like Al Gore's and Rep Nancy Pelosi's.

Kennedy was talking about politicians who had their careers to lose by taking unpopular stances.

Dean's political career is over. He can only go one place - the presidency.

And at the time of his initial statements, he was trailing badly in the polls and had nowhere to go but up.

That's not exactly a profile in courage in my book, no matter how much I agreed with what he was saying.

It was awesome. It just wasn't courageous.

Any politician that opposed the '03 Iraq invasion prior to the war, showed real boldness in opposing conventional wisdom, the polls and the mainstream press. It's unfortunate for you that your candidate didn't.

Any Democratic politician that supported the '91 Iraq war against his base constituency, did the right thing and again showed boldness. It's unfortunate that your candidate was wrong in this instance as well.

I said numerous times in this thread that Kerry lacked boldness and courage in this instance.

But Dean, in opposing the war, didn't show it either.

I'm not saying he showed the opposite of boldness or courage, I'm just saying Dean was in no position to make a bold or courageous decision at all.

As someone in the back of the pack looking to get out, he had an easier time picking a way to go. And if you look and listed all the candidates, all the anti-war folk are near the bottom, except Dean.

Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun, Graham.

Dean's anti-war stance, combined with his willingness to take on the Democratic establishment and his record as governor of a state for 10 years is what made him rise.

It had nothing to do with courage or boldness.

since you assert that there is no such thing?

but this is modern day politics - nothing is bold or courageous anymore.

What is the purpose of rhetorical questions? Don't bother, I know the purpose of rhetorical questions and I find them bold and courageous.

because other people were claiming it was a bold and courageous stand to take.

And I disagreed with them.

This is actually complex because following Bush anywhere calls for a dilemma. If it appears right. If it appears there is a check, an agreement. If the decision is honest---Bush will make it go his way and badly. No one else gains. People die. Not appearing too understand or cope with that is a question of judgment and risk no candidate has satisfactorily answered. Being right in hindsight seems to help. Being wrong seems to hurt. People die.

Dean was an outsider whether his decision was sincere or not. The fact is there are particular ugly crunch points where an entrenched usurping evil must be opposed and the Democrats(as a whole) within Congress gave them an inch. There was no consequence for Bush taking the miles.

This is not a good chapter for the Party. Those who said no like those who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin(2 Senators?)won't be found in the Profiles of Courage because they failed to save the country. They lost and so did Ammerica. Big time. But being right is what must be done.

If this is now history all the candidates must prove they can in the future do the right thing. The soldiers and civilians are already dead. Many many more await their sentence.

I would like to remind you, Magic Rat (by the way, Bruce was great Sunday at Dodger Stadium), and I am sure you will remember that...

After Howard Dean had courageously spoken out against the war in Iraq and once the war had begun, every political pundit in America was writing him off as a lost cause. As the Campaign of "Shock and Awe" and "Decapitation Strikes" began to unfold with 24/7 television news and inbedded war correspondents and as American public opinion was juiced up for that stupid war, Howard Dean stood his ground...against conventional wisdom, against overwhelming public opinion, against his own Party's leadership because as he has said "the Bush Administration never made the case for the war being necessary."

I know how much you like John Kerry, but please don't try to diffuse the hard truth of Kerry's lack of courage before the War by questioning Dean's motives for opposing the war at that time, which was hardly considered "wise" at the time politically.

For anyone to float a trial ballon and insinuate that it was wise politically for Dean to have opposed the War even at the War's highest peak of popularity is simply pathetic and only reveals how desperate some candidates have now become as they come to realize that the race for the Democratic Nomination is already over.

What would be far better would be for John Kerry, who I have long admired to be honest and admit what must be haunting his soul...that he made a politically calculated decision against his head and heart and experience and now regrets it.

Attacking Howard Dean now only makes Kerry and his followers look very small. I'd expect this from Lieberman's followers, but not Kerry's.

What's pathetic, is that people think all candidates are created equal.

Dean and Kerry are like Goofus and Gallant.

Gallant (Kerry) started out as the prize horse. The resolution was a test, a trap if you will, to peg Kerry as a soft-on-defense leftie.

This was a lose-lose situation for him, at the time.

If he voted for the resolution, he angers the party base.
If he votes against the resolution, he appears too soft and maybe moderates won't take to him. That was the rove trap, no matter which way Kerry moved, he was sunk.

So he tried to make the best of it, which any smart, experienced politician would. He voted for the resolution, threw out a bunch of caveats, and basically said, "yeah, overthrowing Saddam was good, but I would have done things much differently and wouldn't have the world hating us in the process."

Goofus (Dean) was the old nag in the race. Nobody thought he had a shot, he could basically toss rhetorical bombs all day because (a) nobody knew who he was. (b) he wasn't a member of congress and thus didn't have to put his money where his mouth was. and (c) saw a political opening with people who were against the war, but didn't have a candidate who also shared their views.

Dean, smartly, saw and opening and took advantage of it like a good, experienced politician should.

Both Kerry and Dean did what they thought was right and most political expedient for their respective situations. Dean didn't have ANY pressure on him to support the war. Kerry did.

That's what makes the difference between courage and expedience.

And as for your contention that it wasn't politically wise for Dean to oppose the war. How can that be even plausable? The top four contenders all supported the war and Dean wanted to break into the top.

He saw a mass of Democrats clamoring for an anti-war voice and he stood up and said "Okay, I'll be your guy."

Try to make the case that had Iraq not happened, Dean wouldn't be a frontrunner right now?

Try.

Or better yet, find me a handful of pro-war Democrats who support him.

It was EXTREMELY politically savvy for Dean to oppose the war, FROM THE POSITION HE WAS IN.

For the same reason it WASN'T for John Kerry.

Like I said, all candidates are not created equal.

Since you are ascribing an intangible and unprovable motivation to Howard Dean's record of standing against the War in Iraq before, during and after the fact, I'd like to participate in the same with you with the following:

(John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards and Dick Gephardt have all been held up back stage in a small dressing room at a briefly delayed event. They are there for a few short moments without their staffs or any outsider to witness their private thoughts and conversations)

LIEBERMAN: Well, at least Howard Dean isn't stuck with us in this room. I don't think I can bear to see his little punchy, "I-was-right-about-the-war" schtick anymore than I imagine the rest of you can.

EDWARDS: Oh, sweet Jesus, yes...er...sorry about that, Joe. It's a Southern expression... But, I know what you mean. That week---when Dean's face was on the cover of Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report---nearly drove my entire family nuts. We couldn't even go down to the local Piggly-Wiggly market. It was just too much---standing there in a check-out line with Howard's face staring at you from everywhere!

KERRY: Yeah, I hear you. Listen, everyone KNEW that the War in Iraq would turn to shit within days of the fall of Baghdad. I knew it. Hell, we all knew it. I also knew that there would be no Weapons of Mass Destruction found and that Bush's pre-war asserstions would quickly become suspicious in the minds of the American people. Still, I did not take advantage of my knowledge. Instead, I supported the War in spite of my knowledge.

GEPHARDT: Exactly. Howard Dean took the easy route on the whole war issue. When Dean was being laughed at by the media and our Party's leadership for his stance against the War, I was getting pretty angry at him back then. Those early days when the War appeared to be going so well and it seemed that the entire American public was cheering our victories and behind our President, I thought to myself how beneficial it would be for me to stand out against the war...how it would make me look so good afterwards because I'd known, like Dean, that it would turn to shit.

LIEBERMAN: Well, I still support the war and I'm going to call for an invasion of Iran soon if Dean doesn't shut up. I just wish that you (speaking to Kerry) hadn't made that lame, limp comment, "Bush misled me." I mean really, John! Have you no shame?

KERRY: Well, I didn't want the American people to know that I had known, like Dean, that the war would turn to shit. I did it because I didn't want to appear opportunistic.

EDWARDS: Opportunistic! That's the word for Dean. I just wish I could sue him over it.

GEPHARDT: Well, gentlemen, at least we can say that we have our honor and our dignity and we did not stoop to the level of opposing a war that would kill thousands of people and ruin America's image around the world. No, we stood with the President, our Party leadership and with our pollsters and not with the rubble of anti-war protesters in the streets. Nothing opportunistic in our bones.

KERRY, LIEBERMAN, EDWARDS: Here, here.

GEPHARDT: Shhh! Here comes Howard, guys!

KERRY, LIEBERMAN, EDWARDS, GEPHARDT: Hey Howard! We're over here!

GEPHARDT: Look at him! He just walked by us! The nerve! It's like we didn't even exist!

EDWARDS: Er...excuse me guys, I...er...need to speak to Howard a minute. Nothing special, mind you, just small talk.

LIEBERMAN: Be sure to kiss his ass for us, John! Everyone knows he needs a Southerner on his ticket.

GEPHARDT: Er...guys, I have to have a few moments with Howard, too. Don't get the wrong idea, though.

LIEBERMAN: Wait for me, Dick.

(Alone, Kerry looks down at the floor, sighs and begins to stand up when a janitor pokes his head into the small room)

JANITOR: I'm sorry, Sir, but I'm looking for Howard Dean. Have you seen him? I just wanted to ask for his autograph and let him know how thankful I am that he stood up against Bush's War.

Dean came out against the war, and questioned the motives of Bush, way back in August, before Al Gore dropped out and before Kerry voted for the Iraq resolution when he was still skeptical about the rush to war from Bush.

And it didn't exactly propell the candidacy of Kucinich, Graham, Braun, or Sharpton, did it?

The reason Dean has done so well is because he is a good candidate and people see that in him. The fact that he stood up for sanity in a time of an increasingly bizzare moment of national disgrace is a bonus.

to death in the Dem party.

Perhaps, just perhaps, Dean was honestly opposed to the war. Just as I believe Kerry made the choices he made after careful consideration, with the best interests of the party and the country in mind, AS HE SAW IT at the time.

We are forever assigning the worst, most devious motives to our fellows in this fight against the worst President* this country has ever had.

How about giving another Dem candidate other than your own the benefit of the doubt?