Will Dean announce opposition to the $87 billion Iraq package?

It looks like there's growing opposition among Democrats in the House (led, last I heard, by Kucinich). Also, both Kerry and Edwards have announced they're likely to vote against the package as currently proposed. There's no need for the Bush Admin to be given a blank check for an open ended occupation funded solely by the US. If I remember correctly, Dean has expressed support for the package. Does anyone know if he is reconsidering?

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the front-running candidate, has no vote in Congress but told the AP he would oppose the $87 billion unless Bush pays for it by repealing a portion of his tax cuts.

"We should support our troops," he said. "If the president doesn't have a sufficient commitment to this operation to get rid of the $87 billion in tax cuts then we should vote no."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/10/14/national1606EDT0691.DTL

I found this when I searched Google. Nice to see more and more Democrats on the right side of this one.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/1010-04.htm

<edit>

PS. While this statement on withdrawal affirms Rep. Kucinich's consistent leadership in opposing the Iraq war and occupation, last night's debate exposed more vacillating from Gov. Dean (who is often called by the media the “leading anti-war candidate”). Where Dean had supported spending $87 billion more on war and occupation at the CNBC debate ("we have no choice," Sept. 25), he refused in yesterday's New York Times to say how he'd vote, if he were in Congress, on the $87 billion. Pressed by Rep. Kucinich last night, Dean said he would support the $87 billion if the money came from rescinding tax cuts -- raising the issue of how the merits of spending more money on a deepening quagmire in Iraq are settled by where the money comes from:

more...

Dean on 9/24:

GIBSON: Would you vote for the $87 billion?

DEAN: If the president will begin to balance the budget. Take that $87 billion from somewhere, mainly from the tax cuts, then I think you have to support the troops.

GIBSON: Absent tax cuts, would you vote for?

DEAN: Unlikely. You can't continue to tell the American people that you can go to war, do something about education, have health care and continue to finance these enormous deficits.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/Politics/GMA030924DeanIntvu.html

And from your source:

DEAN: I believe if the president is serious about supporting our troops in Iraq that he has to say where he's going to get the money from, and that means he's got to get rid of $87 billion worth of the tax cuts that went to Ken Lay and his friends at Enron.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/1010-04.htm

Seems consistent to me...

Here's the full quote from the 9/25 debate. Looks like the press release I cited distorts the facts (my apologies). I would oppose the $87 billion regardless of how it's financed (I'd rather see the request be turned on Bush to force a much greater UN participation), but Dean does appear to be consistent regarding how he'd finance it (my internet connection is glacial today, so I didn't check the NY Times article the press release referred to).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A433-2003Sep25¬Found=true

<edit>

DEAN: I believe the $87 billion ought to come from the excessive and extraordinary tax cuts that this president foisted upon us, that mainly went to people like Ken Lay who ran Enron.

<edit>

So I believe not only should we get rid of the $87 billion worth of tax cuts to pay to support our troops--even though I did not support the war in the beginning, I think we have to support our troops--I also believe we ought to get rid of the entire Bush tax cut. It is bad for the economy and it has not created one job.

WILLIAMS: Is that an up or down, yes or no, on the $87 billion per se?

DEAN: On the $87 billion for Iraq?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

DEAN: We have no choice, but it has to be financed by getting rid of all the president's tax cuts?

more...

So Dean changed his original support position to agree with Kerry's? Interesting.

The Dean contingent has to go digging to figure out the spin....

Here's more from Kerry:
"Unless this proposal is changed to better protect taxpayer dollars and shares the burden and risk of transforming Iraq with the United Nations and the rest of the international community, then I will oppose it."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=694&e=2&u=/ap/20031014/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_iraq

I wish people would just read the transcripts, they are posted in this very thread!

87 bil. as is when it was first an issue. That he has refined his position since then should be of no surprise. To his credit as a politician, he is quite adept at slipping in those refinements.

Flip-flopping- now THAT'S a problem. For example, if someone had supported the war months ago, but then started coming around saying that they're AGAINST the war. That's a serious problem.

WELL before Kerry and Biden's resolution, which I give them credit for.

But what did Dean say at last Thursday's debate? Didn't he say, when Kucinich confronted him, he'd vote in FAVOR of the $87b if he were in a position to do so?

For his sake and his supporters, I hope he's not waffling around on this, now that it appears to be a popular position to take...

DEAN: I believe if the president is serious about supporting our troops in Iraq that he has to say where he's going to get the money from, and that means he's got to get rid of $87 billion worth of the tax cuts that went to Ken Lay and his friends at Enron.

KUCINICH: Would you fund keep the troops in Iraq?

DEAN: Yes.

KUCINICH: You would?

DEAN: If the president was willing to pay for it.

for building roads and schools and cell phone systems in Iraq. As Max Cleland said this morning, we ought to be building those here, and we don't have the money to do it here.

Dean wants to be anti-war and pro-occupation. Weird. :shrug:

...and the rest is to pay for the occupation. That is my understanding.

Don

Unless one of YOUR weak-assed heroes thinks just bailing and throwing the Iraqis to the wolves should be way to make up for the hideous mess we've craeted.

you might be right, but keep it quiet ........
"throw it to the dogs", then.

Gradually get the troops out as they are replaced by experienced UN peacekeepers under UN command...

Pay for the reconstruction, but the contracts would be under the UN and also use Iraqis so it would be much less expensive than anything-you-want-Bechtel/Halliburton contracts.

No cut and run there.

:evilgrin:

(Put on your asbestos suits, kids, the Dean fans will be here soon!)

Or are intent upon mischaracterizing.

There's been NO inconsistency whatsoever on Dean's part.

Eloriel

since you guys are so intent on micro parsing, go through THIS-- it will save you a lot of trouble, and you won't have to stretch as much to cram stuff into your world view.

"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.

"That is, after all, now much more than a national security objective," he added. "It is a declaration of national purpose, written in the blood of our troops, and of the innocent on all sides who have perished."

All articulated APRIL 9 of this year.

that's a pretty specific question.

Regarding the $87 billion, Dean said clearly that he would support it only if it came from the tax cuts. This is not so hard to understand.

No, we can't abandon the Iraquis now that we've ruined their country, but we don't have this money to spend, because Bush cut taxes. Send it back in Bush's face.

I've also heard Dean mention that we could start a national health care plan with that $87B, but it seems that Bush has gotten into a mess that we can't just ignore. I agree with Dean in that we can't just keep deficit spending, and Bush will keep trying to float the economy into election time.

...this is a horrible position to be taking. I sure hope he doesn't "waffle" on the issue. I thought his original position was the correct one....you wanted this war, and to pay for it Bush is going to have to take the money back that he gave to his buddies.

This "saying no" stuff looks very spiteful. I think people are going to end up regretting it. This is risky in the EXTREME.
You just damned well BETTER know what you're doing. We're just now getting back on the offensive, and if this thing backfires, and you blow our momentum, I'm gonna be really pissed.

He's not supporting the package. He is willing to spend what is needed to fix this mess. But he's not for spending NEW money to do it. He's not attached to 87 billion. He's not attached to anything but getting the UN in, relieving the US troops, letting the world solve a global crisis.

January. So why is this an "emergency" bill?

We have the TIME to thoroughly debate this and know in detail each Presidential candidate's position. So what's the rush? " Oh, Daddy, Congress is fighting me," says Bush, sucking thumb.

Dean and Kerry positions just play to the anger, without solving the problem that WE SHOULD NOT BE THERE!!

neither is it Wesley Clark's.

Whichever way it goes, these boys are out nothing; they can still pose as outsiders.


:kick:

is those candidates that get to vote on this issue. Edwards, Kucinich, and Kerry have already indicated that they are voting against the measure for a variety of reasons.

Joe Lieberman has said that he will vote for it.

I haven't heard about Gephardt's intentions. Any of Gep's supporters know what he is going to do?

Maybe he and Lieberman can be invited to the Rose Garden spend-your-money-for-pork party.

And Dean is so much for saving our money that he will not reduce the defense budget ONE PENNY. Which is greater, this appropriation or the bloated defense budget? Nice try, Dean. You failed.