Howard Dean: "I supported what the President did..." in Afghanistan...

Here is a quote taken out of context from Howard Dean, praising George W. Bush's war in Afghanistan.

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the elimination of the Taliban. I thought that group was a clear and present danger to the United States, and I supported what the President did.

Howard Dean
May 22, 2003

:wtf:


:hippie:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=553405&mesg_id=553405

"Clark praised Bush AGAIN!"

Clark was referring to the Afghansitan invasion. He was hardly alone.

Thansk--curious where it came from and what the entire quote was!

EVERYBODY supported Bush's actions in Afghanistan.

OnEdit: Everybody in the party leadership (with maybe one or two exceptions)

Barring any conspiracy theories, don't you think it was a good idea to go in there and get him?
This is serious...if someone goes around saying we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan, unless the Taliban wasn't involved with Al Qaeda (which it seems pretty likely that they were)...I dunno man. That's kind of...
All I know is that in the week after 9/11, I was talking about nuking people. I wanted blood. As long as the leaders of Afghanistan had ties to Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda carried out 9/11, this is a slam dunk. There's no question. At all.
Dispute one of those premises and you might have a case.

I have not seen the evidence that Powell refers to as the "white paper" yet. I do not think you have either? Why is that? And why has Bush tried his best to block and stonewall any real independent investigation of the events leading up to and ending on 9/11/01? That is enough for me not to trust anything this adminstration tells me. Let me ask you something. After being lied to about WMD's in Iraq how can you believe anything they say anymore on only their good word? And if you do, thats your choice, but if they told me it was sunny out I would be grabbing for my raincoat.

Don

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/5012.htm

Interview on Meet the Press

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Washington, DC
September 23, 2001

<snip>QUESTION: Are you absolutely convinced that Usama bin Laden was responsible for this attack?

SECRETARY POWELL: I am absolutely convinced that the al-Qaida network, which he heads, was responsible for this attack. You know, it's sort of al-Qaida -- the Arab name for it is "the base"-- it's something like a holding company of terrorist organizations that are located in dozens of countries around the world, sometimes tightly controlled, sometimes loosely controlled. And at the head of that organization is Usama bin Laden. So what we have to do in the first phase of this campaign is to go after al-Qaida and go after Usama bin Laden. But it is not just a problem in Afghanistan; it's a problem throughout the world. That's why we are attacking it with a worldwide coalition.

QUESTION: Will you release publicly a white paper, which links him and his organization to this attack, to put people at ease?

SECRETARY POWELL: We are hard at work bringing all the information together, intelligence information, law enforcement information. And I think, in the near future, we will be able to put out a paper, a document, that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack. And also, remember, he has been linked to earlier attacks against US interests and he was already indicated for earlier attacks against the United States.

more

oh, I FORGOT! THEY DID! :nuke:

and I would guess we were playing right into his hands by angering Arabs due to the atrocities in Afghanistan (mainly pertaining to the cutoff of aid from Pakistan) and probably widening the ranks of very angry (normally moderate) Muslims. I have never had my close friends or family murdered brutally with munitions, but I can imagine how it feels.

And as another reply to your post said, I have never seen conclusive evidence, just everyone saying "He did it".

Barbara Lee!

but she argued against simply handing authority over to the administration after 9/11...everybody was on board when we went into Afghanistan

while i believe the push into war with afghanistan was misguided toward the concept of defeating terrorism, 90% of the people backed it and all of the major candidates did as well. Very rational thoughts on the political climate of the time, Terwilliger.

I think Wyldwolfs point is that some who are members of the small faction of the Pro-Dean camp and who are smearing Clark with out of context quotes should not be hypocritical on the issue.

>EVERYBODY supported Bush's actions in Afghanistan.

Yep, that's the point. There are several topics today trying to make an issue of the fact that Clark supported the military action in Afghanistan.

(IIRC the only vote against it was from my representative, Barbara Lee -- I liked her gutsiness, but not her position in this case.)

?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

The invasion of Afghanistan was in the works since at least two months before 9/11. I have access to this information just simply from casually surfing the web. I cannot accept Dean pleading ignorance on something like this because he has a whole bunch of people around him that have BETTER ACCESS TO INFORMATION THAN I DO.

NOBODY would have the chance of beating Bush in 04 if they wouldnt come out in favour of a war that was supported by nearly everyone and was viewed as a response to Sept 11. If Dean came out against afghanistan, and with foreign policy being his biggest perceived weakness, his candidacy wouldnt have much of a chance, let alone dead in the water against Bush.

his candidacy took off because of all of the anti-Bush/anti-Iraq War sentiment. The ugly truth would have only added more to his momentum.

Many people, while supporting Iraq, realized it was an elective (and pre-emptive) war while the vast majority of people believed Afghanistan was necessessary to get Osama.

Other than Sharpton and Kucinich, I question their sincerity and truthfulness on this issue. I am also appalled to see so many Democrats either excusing, rationalizing or ignoring.

The exercise isn't to merely replace Bush.

It's not even to replace him with something, anything better.

It's to replace him with the best we have to represent us and right now, there are only two candidates out there who I feel represent me- Kucinich and Sharpton.

has little probability of being achieved. Personally, the whole Democratic Party as an institution is revolting since it's based on a heirarchal monopoly of power over the governance of the people, and since those in power for the most part support the idea of a plutocracy, i dont think much will be achieved to rectify the great problems of society today in the near future. However, we must recognize that the culture of today accepts authoritarianism much more than before and since we cannot force people to accept our views (nor would we want to), we need to work within the climate of the time to either advance, stall, or delay whatever changes necessesary to the advancement of our beliefs.

It sounds like you're advocating one because that's people accept it more today than before.

My family fled from one. I lived under one. I have no interest in seeing one here...

You may have accepted this as the climate of our time. I do not and I refuse it. I will do everything within my power to ensure that there is no authoritarian regime in the US.

Frankly, some of you Clark supporters are seriously frightening me.

since we cannot force people to accept our views (nor would we want to), we need to work within the climate of the time to either advance, stall, or delay whatever changes necessesary to the advancement of our beliefs. and this climate you mention is one where people accept authoritarianism much more than before.

Thank you for answering but I really can't welcome this kind of thought in my party; one of us will have to go if that's what I'm to expect under Clark. If I've misunderstood you, please explain yourself.

actually the opposite. I was commenting on the political climate of today and the role of the Democratic Party in it. While i believe that the 2 party monopoly should be abolished and that most governing authority should be decentralized, it isnt going to happen anytime soon. In order to advance my beliefs i need to pragmatic, and Dennis Kucinich, while more closer to my views than Clark or Dean, isnt realistic.


Edit - errors

I was getting worried there about you.

I do think Kucinich is realistic but that's a whole other discussion. I'd like to talk with you some other time about this because your view seems interesting. I just can't now due to a raging head-ache. Talk to you soon.

and what will you do if Dean wins the nomination?

Julie

I don't even know if I'm going to try to get to the polls. If I do get to the polls, I will probably be revenge voting against Schumer and leaving the vote for President blank. I support Kucinich, Sharpton and Braun but I'm not enthused. These three alone have given me the impression that they aren't slimy, I can't say the same for the other seven.

what planet do you live on?

he may be a good orator, but he's about as slimy as they come.

just ask Steven Pagones. as a New Yorker, I'd guess you know who he is.

destroying three countries(US, Afghanistan, Iraq)
is Sharpton committing genocide or aiding and abetting a criminal that is committing it?????

Incredible...

Bush did all of the dirty work for the Pro-war factions of the DLC. Dean has already shown that he is pro-occupation and that he isn't willing to cut funding for the DoD.
Any Democrat that is pro-occupation is anti-education, anti-universal healthcare, racist and hasn't been telling the truth about their positions on Bush policies.
All of these jerk-offs are nothing but an extension of Bush.

...and don't be too upset. I pointed out italicized that this was take out of context - but it is in reaction to the thread going on about Wesley Clark's support of Bush's Afghanistan campaign.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=553405

Many times in that thread, it was pointed out that most people did support the Afghanistan invasion at the time.

However, some DU'ers took the high road and denied that fact. Some said whoever supported it were not the heart and soul of the Dem party.

One even took offense that Clark called Bush "President."

However, at the moment, we have not heard or read the context of Clark's speech.

Just as many of you haven't read the context of Dean's quote above...

Most people here already know about Dean and Afghanistan- at least I certainly hope they do because many of us pointed these statements out already.

Even though it's true, it makes you look childish and vindictive.

I'd sincerely suggest you use a different, more constructive approach when it's old news. Come up with a thread honestly comparing the different candidate's statements. Until then, you just look like you're throwing dirt.

These words coming from someone who is against Dean precisely because of his statements on Afghanistan and Iraq. Most of his supporters can overlook them but I can't. The exercise I suggested isn't for you or for me or even for Dean supporters, it's for the people you're trying to reach. The ones who lurk on this board looking for information, not food fights; the ones whose minds aren't made up yet.

Even though it's true, it makes you look childish and vindictive.

On the money here T. See this poster has declared that when a thread goes up that is critical of Clark he will retaliate against Dean (I suspect this to be so even if "offending" poster is not a Deanie).

I find this poster to be somewhat disturbing with their announced intentions to to keep lists of who says what etc. It is obsessive behavior that is extremely childish and vindictive.

One of many reasons that when I recommend DU I strongly emphasize LBN. There seems to be less participation of this particular variety of poster there.

Hard to believe we're all on the same team sometimes, eh?

Julie

earlier. There will be no Republican Primaries this year. What are all those Republican ideologues doing or going to be doing soon?

Remember Majette?

Frankly, I view a lot of people here with distrust now. Even though we're on different pre-Primary sides, I know we'll be able to come together for the same team.

I am not so sure about some others (not speaking of anyone in particular here but I do have strong suspicions). There's no way I'm on the same team as posters who say that it's fine that the Iraqis should have to repay us, the invaders, half the cost of the war and that we didn't destroy their country- that Sadaam did. Get this, Sadaam destroyed all those schools and hospitals!

I never thought I'd see the kind of tripe at DU that I'm seeing these days.

Sometimes, honestly, I yearn for the relative peace of mind I used to have down in I/P of all places. LBN is currently the only refuge bearing a smidgeon of similarity to the old DU.

Peace :)

These words coming from someone who is against Dean precisely because of his statements on Afghanistan and Iraq.

You're against Dean because he was FOR attacking Afghanistan and AGAINST invading Iraq? Those are his positions.

Eloriel

he was for waiting 60 days and forcing Saddaam to disarm during those 60 days. After Sadaam hadn't disarmed (which he couldn't because there was nothing to disarm from), Dean was all for it. Do you really call that being against the invasion? I call that being against the manner, not the act. I just crucified Clinton, who's pretty up there on my hero scale, in another post for 8 years worth of incessant bombings. I can't let Dean go scot-free and pretend he was something he wasn't.

On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times that
"if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that
Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military
action, even without U.N. authorization."

On Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses
not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam
30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a
regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

I am against everyone who supports war and rationalizes it.

I'm sorry Eloriel, I can't trust what people say after the fact when it contradicts what they said during.

Dean has a lot of things going for him but this isn't one of them. His present statements on Iran & Syria are not reassuring me now either.

==========================

I should qualify, I am not against Dean as much as I am not for him. There's a nuance of a difference buried in there somewhere and that's how it is in my head. Hope that makes sense.

Dean had no aversion to 'attacking' Iraq if they were a proven threat. However, Dean ALWAYS maintained the President had not proven that Saddam was a threat to anyone.

Dean has always maintained the war on Iraq was wrong. He said IF Saddam was 'really' a threat to the US or it's allies, then he would support the war. I feel he was trying to clarify his position. He is not against protecting the US, but never felt this war was about doing that.

I feel the quotes above may be taken out of context. Here is a better characterization of Dean's position. I have read several articles and Deans message remaines the same.

"Dean has won cheers from Democratic audiences by saying he would not have voted for the war resolution his congressional rivals helped pass, saying it is "the wrong war at the wrong time." But he has said he would support military action if it was proved Iraq had nuclear weapons and refused to disarm within 60 days."CNN news March 2003

I find that a most reasonable position...

not because of his statements because I've been watching them from the beginning, before he was speaking to crowds- mostly made up of leftis activists. This Iraq thing is as near and dear to my heart as the I/P conflict and I'm a little intransigeant and unforgiving avout it. If you go on the Muslim boards, they have archived his older statements because they weren't happy with them. It is precisely because of his past statements on Iraq that the endorsements of known peace activists are all going to Kucinich.

One day soon, because I am extremely worried over the Middle East, I'll start a thread with all the quotes I have from several candidates and ask people to weigh in. There's too much being said and printed now to keep everything straight and we're coming to the point where we're going to have to trust each others sincerity based on the trust they've already established.

You've been very sincere. So has Indiana Green. So has Hedda Foil well shucks, a ton of you who I know to be sincere and caring/// When I have the strength lol, I would really like to hear informed, sincere Dean supporters allay some of the doubts I have about Dean and the entire Middle East. It could just be, and this is the best explanation I was ever given by a Dean supporter, that he doesn't have the best grasp on the Middle East and just said/says some things. They put it a little more elegantly than that though. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to attack Dean or take off on this tangent.

;)

Retaliatory bashing for Clark, even if it doesn't make sense.

..that someone would dare bring to light a quote from Dean after they just got through bashing Clark for a similar quote...

..both taken out of context...

...and don't be too upset. I pointed out italicized that this was take out of context - but it is in reaction to the thread going on about Wesley Clark's support of Bush's Afghanistan campaign.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=553405

Many times in that thread, it was pointed out that most people did support the Afghanistan invasion at the time.

However, some DU'ers took the high road and denied that fact. Some said whoever supported it were not the heart and soul of the Dem party.

One even took offense that Clark called Bush "President."

However, at the moment, we have not heard or read the context of Clark's speech.

Just as many of you haven't read the context of Dean's quote above...

I'm a Clark supporter, and I think you should take the Clark bashing in stride. Don't respond to Clark bashing with Dean (Or whoever else) bashing. Stick up for your candate by presenting positive material. Go buy his book, "Winning Modern War." It covers what happened, what should have happened, and what he would have done. Use that material as a positive. It's brilliant. The back and forth bashing serves no other purpose than to devide us all. Dean is a good candidate. Clark is a good candidate. Edwards is a good candidate. Kerry is a good candidate. ETC. ETC. ETC.

Pick your guy, lobby on his behalf. Don't try to tear the others down. We are all on the same team.

Bashing never made much sense to me.

I am currently working to get Dean on the primary ballot here in VA. We need at least 10,000 petition signatures statewide. Dean is way ahead of the others mainly because he got an early start.

When petitioning, I never bash the other candidates! If someone says, well, I like Clark, I'll say, well, he's a good man, too. Then I point out that they can and should sign all the candidate's petitions if they are asked to- as I have. They can vote for whomever they like when the time comes. I have signed petitions for all the candidates.

We Dems can get really vicious with one another and it has to stop- I wonder how many people have been turned off by the bashing and infighting? It's a shame.

When I saw your thread I understood. I don't think most people opposed the removal of the Taliban. I am still for, I just don't think it will be done under the current administration.

I was in full agreement with that as well. I also agree with the "Do not call list" and the tax cuts for the middle class. Everything else I am pretty much in disagreement with Bush on.

Mike

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

Not this time. I think it was perspective. There was a tiny minority of people who opposed the invasion of Afghanistan. Most people favored or at least accepted it and bipartisanship was the order of the day at the time. In fact, if we'd stayed there and committed to some nation building that would really have been a war of liberation. A lot of women wanted to see someone go in there and do something before 911, but being a sovereign nation, there really wasn't anything we could do, under the rules we were playing by at that time.

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

As did, I think, every single candidate except Kucinich. But I'm not a Kucinich backer either. I like Clark. Mostly because I think he, and Edwards, are our best chance to defeat Bush.

I gave Bush and Co. *one* chance in Afaghansitan. They blew it of course.

We had to go after these people (and no, I don't buy the conspiracy theories that Bush did it himself). I'm a native New Yorker. My city was attacked in a way I still can't begin to comprehend. It was a declaration of war and the Taliban was hiding them. We gave them a choice; hand them over, nobody gets hurt. They decided.

I was hoping against hope that we would rebuild that country and rectify the wrong that we have done to those people in the past. It didn't turn out that way, of course, they couldn't wait to get out of there and invade Iraq. It looks like the Taliban are back and will be able to declare final victory. It makes me sick.

He said Bush was a punk for using warlords to fight terrorists.

and his disagreement was with method rather than the mission itself.

He said that the operation to capture OBL hiding out somewhere in Tora Bora was completely undermined by the recruitment of local Afghanis to help canvass the mountainous region. He asked why we had to compromise the efforts of the U.S. forces in this specific task by diluting their ranks with foreign conscripts, and in fact endanger U.S. troops by doing so. Kerry was just pointing out Bush's ineptness as a CiC.

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

One supports a policy, the other seems gushy to me. That's 'to me'. IMO.

Why because it is all about winning in 2004.

Like I said earlier, if you dig deep enough you'll find stuff like this in all of the Democratic candidate profiles. This stuff doesn't matter. What does matter you ask? The issues.

So I'm a Clarkie who can be a Deanie, or a Sharpie. Just as long as we win!

...reasonable people can differ. Especially on emotional subjects such as war and peace. Really the past two years have not been sufficient to tell yet who was right and who was wrong on Afghanistan. Time will tell though.

Don

The oil companies wanted to install pipelines and the Taliban would not cooperate with their plans. The US threatened them with a carpet of bombs and came through with that promise 3 months later on a trumped up charge of being involved with 9-11.

He didn't 'praise' the Prez like Clark did here...

"I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work done by our commander-in-chief, our president, George Bush," he said in the January 22, 2002 speech."

Still waiting for the Dean quote in context. I'll remember we can paraphrase for Clark in the future also...

1. The Clark quote is out of context.
2. The Dean quote is out of context.

The Clark quote is a piece taken from a larger source that hasn't been made available to us.

Nothing was paraphrased in my post. Maybe you don't know the definition?

Dean's exact quote was "I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the elimination of the Taliban. I thought that group was a clear and present danger to the United States, and I supported what the President did."

My heading was "Howard Dean: "I supported what the President did..." in Afghanistan...

In quotes (" ") is Dean's words. Outside of the quotes is a clarifier. Journalism 101.

And, of course, we know you have made the determination of what level of praise for Bush is acceptable for us.

Saying "I supported the President" (Dean) is OK. But if the praise is "glowing" (Based on your definition) then it isn't ok.

As always, you set the bar of what is acceptable as a democrat just above Clark's reach.

Doesn't surprise me, though.

Anyway, I think it is sooo funny that everything those of your mindset try to call Clark on, it is revealed Dean has done or said something similar... and then the spin you and yours put on it becomes comedic.

I learned a lesson long ago: Before you sling mud, make sure you're clean. Or, in this case, make sure your candidate is clean.

As much as you'd like to paint this picture:

"Anyway, I think it is sooo funny that everything those of your mindset try to call Clark on, it is revealed Dean has done or said something similar...

Dean never:
Voted for Reagan
Voted for Bush
Raised $$ for Republicans
Said this:

"I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work done by our commander-in-chief, our president, George Bush," he said in the January 22, 2002 speech."

Dean said:

"I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the elimination of the Taliban. I thought that group was a clear and present danger to the United States, and I supported what the President did." See the difference?

Let's see:

"I supported what the President did"

Or, "I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work done by our commander-in-chief."

Talk about a laughable comparison.

You have started a thread stating correctly, that Dean agreed with the Prez on Afghanistan. And, I could start a thread stating correctly that Wes Clark has tremendous admiration for the great work of "our commander and cheif" :eyes: George Bush. :puke:

Also, it's interesting to note "Praise" according to the dictionary is as follows:

To express warm approbation of, commendation for, or admiration for. To extol or exalt; worship.

You can spin all you want but the differences between Deans statement of agreement and Clarks 'praise' are crystal clear.

As you know, most of our Democratic Candidates agreed with the War on Afghanistan. None of the 'others' showed up to praise Bush and his cronies while raising $$ for the Republicans.

You said ~ "I learned a lesson long ago: Before you sling mud, make sure you're clean. Or, in this case, make sure your candidate is clean."

You learned a lesson? Sorry, doesn't appear that you have learned a blasted thing. You can't be implying that Clark is "clean" ??? bwahahahahaha... That IS funny.

Glad to know Deans words were not taken out of context, I thought surely they were as the case you made was so ... well ... lame.

Well known Dean was reared in a republican family.

Well known he considered himself a conservative at one time.

Well known he made and kept a promise not to offend the Republicans in Vermont by rolling back republican programs when he ascended to the governorship.

Well know that a former Democratic governor of Vermont declared that Dean fell under the sway of big business.

Well known the environmentalists in Vermont considered Dean a republican in democrat's clothing.

Clark just voted for some republican candidates while Dean catered to them.

Both Dean's and Clark's quotes were being supportive of Bush for his handling of Afghanistan.

You just have a problem with the way Clark said it.

The rest of your post here is as twisted and misinformed as something can get.

It is obvious to everyone that both quotes were taken out of context as I have pointed out several times yet you just can't see it.

Was I implying Clark is clean? As everyone (but you) understood, that wasn't the point. The point was no candidate is clean, so don't sling mud because it will, and has, come back to you.

http://www.rnc.org/media/pdfs/dems043001.pdf

Again, I wouldn't bring this up but seeing as
how our candidates are using right wing talking
points it is fair game to bring it up.

Clark isn't the only Democrat too generous with
praise.

Some are gonna say that Clark's remarks were more glowing or nicer or something.

And some will say, "none of them are running for president."

But IMO the Clark statement is now officially a non-issue, at least as far a democrats go.

Nice try.

...your theories and hypothesis just don't translate into reality in the real world... for example:

Ever since Clark jumped into the race, Kerry and other leading candidates -- including former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt -- have tried to stall his momentum by repeatedly criticizing his late Democratic conversion. They've pointed out that Clark voted for Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, and that Clark publicly praised the current Bush administration as recently as 2001.

But in interviews over the past week, voters of every political persuasion said over and over that this argument is unlikely to take hold in New Hampshire, where more people are registered as "undeclared" than as either Democrat or Republican. And these independents, who can vote in either party's presidential primary, are likely to flock to the Democratic contest because no one is challenging President Bush for the Republican nomination.

Even voters who identified themselves as Democrats or Republicans said they take pride in their ability to look beyond party lines in this traditionally anti-tax, anti-regulation state, where the motto is "Live Free or Die" and the law doesn't require adults to wear seat belts.

Jack A. Saunders, a Democrat from Holderness, said going after Clark for voting Republican will backfire on candidates like Kerry.

http://www.post-gazette.com/election/20031019independents1019p2.asp

Couple this with the fact that Clark is running first or second in most national polls and there is your proof that this is a non-issue.

perfunctorily polite and nothing more.

Better than nothing and we are already aware of those, they were dissected ad nauseam on this board, but not good enough. They were nothing more than 2001 polite applause for the new pResident. Things degenerated extremely quickly if you recall.

Your running out of things to bash Dean on.

we killed there. And the Taliban was not half as bad as the Northern Alliance who raped every female from 8 to 80 after we put them in charge and restarted the heroin trade. As for Osama, we didn't get him.