Is anyone else here starting to question Dean's Iraq war comments?

Let me be clear, im a Dean supporter. It seems in the last few weeks, Dean has crept ever closer to the "many years in Iraq" crowd. "We cant leave Iraq".....im starting to worry he has sold out. He led for one reason only, he took on * and PNAC, he spoke out against the war and the neo-cons. Has Grossman, his advisor and former head of AIPAC shifted Deans views? This is not a bash Dean thread, im a Dean voter, i hope.

And I watch -- and read -- as much as I can of him.

Eloriel

"turn it all over to the UN, give up the oil and the no-bid contracts"

If i ever hear Howard say anything resembling "we have to invade Iran or Syria", ill know hes sold out. I have to be honest, im concerned. I have been the biggest Dean supporter you will find.

we should "turn it all over to the UN". If you fo to his website, he lists what he thinks needs to be done. He call for "sharing responsibility for decision making" but NOT "turn it all over to the UN"

And, if Dean gets the nomination, I suspect Bush* will start talking about invading Iran, NK, or Syria, in order to trap Dean, who will support those actions (unlike Iraq, NK and Iran ARE developing nukes) and as a result, turn off a lot of Dean's supporters

I think what you're hearing is that *now* that we've invaded Iraq and made a total mess of the place, we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people. That's different from being for the war.

It's kind of the way I feel, although as things go on, I have to wonder if there *is* anything we can do.

Considering how we got there, maybe our responsibilty to the Iraqi people would be best served by getting out and paying for the trouble we've caused.

.

I'm with Eloriel, I read - watch etc... and have no doubt's that Dean's positions are reasonable.

If you see something of concern, please post a link though?

Thanks...

read this article.http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j082703.html

NEVER did I think Dean was an anti-war candidate. He's always been anti-Bush's-handling-of-the-war.

most here, support Dean because he seemed like our main chance to stop the perpetual war assholes, if Dean isnt "anti-war", i am concerned. So, tell me, how is he not "anti-war", im not talking about self defense obviously, im talking about the current aggressive war, state of affairs.

most here, support Dean because he seemed like our main chance to stop the perpetual war assholes

really? seriously? HOLY cow!

He's a Democrat. When have the Democrats shown they wouldn't carry out American imperialist actions? Do you think Lieberman would be "anti-war"? Come on!

Dean is nowhere near "anti-war" and I'm sorry that you've been so heavily deceived.

:eyes: Is Loserman even a fucking democrat ?

Clinton refused to invade Iraq, despite the same letters from PNAC demanding he do so, thats basically why he was impeached.

Yea sure, Jimmy Carter was starting imperialist wars all over the place :eyes:

the Afghanistan and the first Gulf war these past few months, including a couple of pretty powerful documentaries.

I have a hard time defending those wars now. More than ever, it seems there is a better argument against supporting those wars, than being in favor of them. They, like this present 'war' seem pretty indefensable and pretty agenda driven.

My extensive research has turned up nothing but consistancy.

"WASHINGTON, D.C. - Governor Howard Dean, M.D. called for United Nations cooperation in helping rebuild Iraq.

"We knew from the outset we could win this war without much help from others. But we cannot win the peace by continuing to go it alone," Governor Dean said. "Our goal should be what the Administration has promised-an Iraq that is stable, self-sufficient, whole and free. Our strategy to achieve that goal should be based on a partnership with three sides-U.S., international and Iraqi-and a program that begins with seven basic points."

See basics of Deans plan here...

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5364&news_iv_ctrl=1421

You break it, you own it. We cannot simply bail out and leave that country in ruins and chaos. What Dean has said is that the UN should be brought in to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq; that does not mean that they would command our military.

They don't need troops, they need police and an election.

I don't see why that would need to take more than six months.

Dean did NOT say "the UN should be brought in to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq". THIS is what Dean said:

""We knew from the outset we could win this war without much help from others. But we cannot win the peace by continuing to go it alone," Governor Dean said. "Our goal should be what the Administration has promised-an Iraq that is stable, self-sufficient, whole and free. Our strategy to achieve that goal should be based on a partnership with three sides-U.S., international and Iraqi-and a program that begins with seven basic points."

Those points are:

A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.

Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.

The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.

The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.
Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.

A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.

A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.

"We must hold the Administration to its promises before the war, and create a world after the war that is safer, more democratic, and more united in winning the larger struggle against terrorism and the forces that breed it," Governor Dean said. "

None of that says "the UN should be brought in to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq". The closest it gets is point#2, and that covers only the civilian authority

He hasn't changed his opinion. He was anti-war but still thinks we need troops in there for, "as long as it takes."

What happens if we destroy Iraq's infrastructure and political stability and then just leave?

Dean's said that Saddam Hussein was a stabilizing force in Iraq (albeit, a scary one). The alternative seems to be a Fundamentalist Islamic government, which would be MORE of a danger to the world than SH was. We can't just walk away at this point.

What we CAN do (as Dean says) is encourage U.N. involvement in stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq. He says that we can't just leave, but he would like this to be a multinational effort.

That's what we would be doing if we just left Iraq without a by-your-leave. Now that we're there, we have new responsibilities.

I'm not a particular fan of Dean's, but he's right on this issue.

Interestingly, they coincide with Israel's interests heavily. He apparently wants to go after Saudi Arabia, if you think Iraq was a mess then you ain't seen nothing yet in this scenario. WW III, anyone?

Dean may be our only hope, and until i find evidence of him selling out, i will vote Dean. If i ever hear Howard talking about getting aggressive in the middle east, as opposed to international law.....i will NOT vote for him, no way.

Only what I have read in the past here on DU. Dean has said things like he thinks Bush is protecting terrorists in the Saudi government, in any case Dean's stance is firmly pro-Likud, that is clear.

Dean doesn't want to INVADE Saudi Arabia. He wants to view the problem of terorism realistically. Saudi Arabia IS a major supporter of terrorism. We need to address that instead of blindly chanting "They're our allies".

Also the Saudi royal family gave $$ to the hi-jackers and Bush and co. covered it up according to the 911 investigation, right?

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16280

Although often portrayed as progressive, former Vermont governor and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean falls short on several issues important to progressives, with the Middle East being one of the more glaring.

True, Dean is one of the Democratic presidential hopefuls who opposed the invasion of Iraq (along with Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, conservative Sen. Bob Graham, former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, and Rev. Al Sharpton), but he is closer to a hawk when it comes to Israel/Palestine and U.S. policy toward Iran.

In a major foreign policy speech earlier this year, Dean, while calling for an end to Palestinian violence, did not call for an end to Israeli violence, let alone an end to the illegal Israeli occupation.

And when asked whether his views are closer to the dovish Americans for Peace Now (APN) or the right-wing, Sharon-supporting American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he stated unequivocally in an interview with the Jewish weekly The Forward, "My view is closer to AIPAC's view."

"At one time the Peace Now view was important, but now Israel is under enormous pressure. We have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations," he said.

more...

Howard had better remain his own man, if he is owned by anyone other than the american people, he can count me out.

As someone else here said, there is nothing wrong with questioning our proposed leader. Lets study him well, and make sure he lays it all out on the table. He needs to take a just approach into the I/P conflict. I was critical of Kerry for voting for the war, then being too gutless to be critical of it later on. Im not going to give Dean a pass, even if i plan on voting for him.

to me! I just don't believe every little bit of bullshit that comes up from all sides!

I respect your posts and will continue to read them...so let us know!

And the Dean team keeps in good communication with their supporters ..so all you have to do is ask him what you are concerned about! :kick:

:-)

This is tough, because to me the statement of remaining in Iraq seems to make little or no sense to me.

And I say this to other Dean supporters,

if you agre or disagree, DONT BE AFRAID TO QUESTION A LEADER, INCLUDING a great man named Howard Dean. Remember he is human and he can actually be wrong, or he could in fact be right, or we could all have points. Doesnt change my mind that hes the top candidate for the job. BUT DONT LET IT DIVIDE US EITHER.

Nows not the time to flame one another, but to give each other room in the tent.

Personally I hope he will redirect his stance towards being more anti-Iraq invasion again. Theres not a single reason we are there other than to secure "there" oil (and look how much it is helping us at the pump) and to loot Iraq, oh, yes and to piss every other nation off globally. Its criminal in fact and every day when I REALLY think about it, I feel incredibly shameful about this Administration who is leading us.

To me, how can we even entertain staying? Did we not learn with the Native Americans and the African Americans? I even wonder if we ever were truly a moral nation or was it all a lie sometimes.

But I believe we CAN be a moral nation though.

And I believe we can lead the world with alternative energy and cleaner energy and plans that will support and sustain this planet instead of toxify it, and I hope Governor Dean will employ at some point Al Gores incredible insight on creating an environmentally progressive policy.

Back to Iraq - they never asked for us to come over and since 91 we have done nothing but destroy their country, their pride, their families, their culture. ITs going to be a long time before Iraquis heal on this one. And personally I think the only way to do this is through a UN backed plan. Although I do believe in one way that we cannot leave a mess without tidying it up. But I dont think the people leading this deal are the ones to do it. Because they wont clean things up. Look at Afghanistan. Although after writing all this, I can now see how Dean may in fact be right that we should stay over there and right the mess that we have made. I only hope that that would happen and our on selfish interests would not impede true rebuilding of THEIR culture, not a culture that we want them to have.

So again, Iraq never asked for our dysfunctional greed driven culture. We are shoving it down their throats and taking their oil at the same time. Thats not right and it will only come back inevitably to kick our butts. You can bank on it.

So the answer, I dont know, but its not to exploit them any further. Enough is enough.

via the Geneva conventions. WE can't up and leave now. WE are responsible first and foremost as a nation regardless who becomes prez?

this is where it gets sticky.

Who's to say we stay over there in the name "reconstruction" only to line our corporations pockets and further steal from their country? We cannot delude ourselves that is not the more likely possibility at this juncture. That is where once again the people and not the governments will have to somehow monitor.

The Iraqis are at our mercy right now. As we have seen our own govt. walk over the UN, there is no objective monitoring taking place. And at this point, Israel is no help in the matter.

Leaving now would let terrorists have free reign in the nation and allow the possibility of Hussein coming back, which is *not* an option.

In addition, we do not want Iraq to fragment into several states and/or allow Iran to become a superpower in a region.

Dean would bring in a lot of international help which would greatly ameliorate the situation.

How the disgusting Jew conspiracy theories crept into this discussion is beyond me.

Come on, be realistic. If we do that, we will leave the country to collapse into chaos, and leave the door open for a fundamentalist regime to come in that would be far more dangerous to us than Saddam ever was. I opposed the war but I think now that we are there we have to stay and finish the job and clean up the mess we made.

turning it over to the UN, allowing free elections, and getting our grubby paws off all the oil and all the contracts ? If we want to remain as peace-keepers just like the Balkans, thats fine......but this shit about "we need to beat them into submission even if it takes 10 years" is garbage.

the paws of haliburton and those vultures?

and what he will become if he's nominated in order to "sell to the American people". I thought Clinton was a pretty good Republican president who handled "blacks, minorities" and others who thought he was god---just like any good lawyer "handles" their client (it's called a deal with another lawyer where you fuck your own client and deliver him while telling him you love him and feel his pain). But, Howard....well, Howard is going to surprise you. His "fiscal" conservative" gene will just about wipe out all the "do gooder" stuff you think he's going to do for you. He's a typical bleed for the people but don't forget your inheritance person.............

So I don't think much any predictions that say what we are going to be surprised by.

He's a typical decent guy with a lot of charisma and some really good ideas about running a Nation!:-)

I didn't read the post this was in response to, just thought I'd toss in something good from the Kucinich camp to balance out any bashing.

you, diamondsoul! :-)

and mind you, I mean one who has no interest in bashing Howard Dean! If he gets the nomination, he's got my full support and my vote.

Now, one of the reasons I chose not to support Dean in the primary race IS his position on Iraq. I fully understand what he's tried to get across to everyone. He's convinced the war was wrong to have been started, but now that it's done, we have responsibilities. He's absolutely right about both. My SOLE disagreement with Dean's position on Iraq is how to handle those responsiblities.

"You broke it, you bought it" doesn't work with freeing an oppressed nation, folks, I'm sorry. Instead it's more like "You broke it you evil monsters and now we're going to kill as many of you as it takes until you're eradicated!"

There will be NO peace in Iraq until American military forces are GONE. That's not a prediction, it's a fact. Dean doesn't see it that way, and I understand that but, I'm firmly convinced he's wrong. I'm equally convinced his sense of right and wrong is firmly in the right place. He means to get us out of Iraq as quickly as he believes is practical and just.

Bottom line? The only thing "wrong" with Dean's position on Iraq is that some of us disagree with his perfectly well-meaning plan to handle the situation. He's a good man, I just don't agree with him in this instance.

We can convince foreign nations to jump in and help us, something the Bush administration is incapable of doing.

to them but we can guess!

With a DEm as our President ..I would hope we would get the World behind us and all us help to rebuild Iraq and clean up the mess the whistleassers made!

I bet most of us would agree that Halliburton and other private American and British industries should LEAVE, do not pass go, do NOT collect ANYTHING. Hell, they have collected ENOUGH. And much of it at our expense.

And the other side, what projects/organizations should go over and truly help to rebuild and create a mutual, interdependent relationship with this country? (Mind you a country that used to claim the highest amount of PhD's coming from their country.)

Private industries with a vested interest seem to be the problem. Once again we are back to corporate rule. *** Corporations have just gotten too damned big for their britches....WAY TOO BIG....

We need to invision how we can make this right again.

America never did fully right the wrongs with Native Americans, or in my opinion, the African Americans, so now we have an opportunity to really be the Superpower we CLAIM to be. We could trump this deal if we let the true goodness of this nation dictate policy.

Keep in mind, we will still have to take our medicine while we make things right. But we will redeem this nation of ours, and gosh, I will even be able to fly the flag again! What a concept.