Dean's 7 point Iraq plan from April, in chart form for comparison.

Dean,Lieberman, Kerry Iraq Reconstruction Plans, Side by side comparison.

From Dean's website. This should clarify some of the misinformation and answer some of the questions floating around.

"nah nah nah nah nah nah, can't here you, nah nah nah"

Kerry said we need the right kind of troops there. Specially trained forces in occupation and civilian/government management who can hand over the country to a UN/Iraqi force. All Dean's got is a number- (40,000) with no regard to quality or type of personnel.
Dean is a naif in these matters.

Until you have all the information, from State and the Pentagon. Unless Dean has access to real intelligence his position is purely based on conjecture; something of a carrot to the voters.

regarding Dean's intelligence gathering process, your position that Deans position is conjecture...is...well....conjecture. :freak:

And Dean's is pure brilliance.

because Dean put his plan out in april... back when Kerry was trying to make up his mind regarding which side of the issue he would help his career more.

None of the candidates have a plan

and challenging him to lay it out there for people to hear it and its specifics. If Dean was so confident in his plan he would have been able to do that.

your buddy sangho says no one has a plan. Can you at least get the story straight amongst yourselves before attacking Dean with contradticting statements?

because Kerry's supporters are mindless robots parroting whatever the candidate says.

You don't parrot anything. You come up with completely original pap to spew. If Kerry said what you guys say, his numbers would be below Bob Graham's.

is where it's at. Get with the program, dude!

because Kerry's supporters are mindless robots parroting whatever the candidate says.

And repetitive too.

Could it be?

Not that he questioned Dean;s plan, but that Dean hadn't bother to even lay out a plan.

Kerry lied, again.

And as you'll recall after this accusation, they cut to commercial and didn't give Dean a rubut.

Saying "I want NATO to take over" isn't "a plan". It's "a dream"

according to that chart - all three refer to NATO as having a key role. NATO? Why NATO? Isn't that mostly European and North American, and theoretically established for defense? Why would any of these three be talking about NATO???

(It was a question I had looking at the chart - this was the first post that seemed to key into the NATO thing - so seemed as good as any of a place to ask the question.)

Because it's not the UN.

so I suppose the reasoning goes... that because we fucked ourselves up in our relations with the UN - but still need an international body/force - we go to NATO?

Under what auspices would NATO have any authority in that region?

Suck it up to the UN - create a UN multilateral force. NATO seems to be an inappropriate body for this effort. Unless I am missing something about NATO (but I don't think that I am).

In fact, he wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the ass.

No, Kerry wasn't challenging the credibility of Dean's plan. Perhpas you misremembered.

"Thirdly, with respect to the war and saying what you believe, we never heard Governor Dean ever say how he would deal with Iraq." - Kerry

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21551-2003Oct26?language=printer

he said you have no plan (ie your plan is non existent) not your plan is no good (ie your plan isn't credible). This is the second time your candidate lied about this issue.

"you have no plan" .

I have it on tape. He said Dean has no plan for Iraq.

as is going on in post 55.

Have 'we'...?

there was nothing to hear.

had, had, had.

"Thirdly, with respect to the war and saying what you believe, we never heard Governor Dean ever say how he would deal with Iraq. I voted the way I think was correct to deal with the security of our country."

It's in reference to what Dean would have done about Iraq in 2002. What was his plan?

There have already been links posted to Dean's statements in the summer of 2002 that he would have gone through the UN.

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade.

August 12, 2002

"There's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims." Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa.

September 06, 2002

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet." Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment.

September 18, 2002

Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.

"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them."

September 18, 2002

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."

October 31st, 2002

"I would like to at least have the president, who I think is an honest person, look us in the eye and say, 'We have evidence, here it is.' We've never heard the president of the United States say that. There is nothing but innuendo, and I want to see some hard facts."

December 22, 2002

"I do not believe the president has made the case to send American kids and grandkids to die in Iraq. And until he does that, I don't think we ought to be going into Iraq. So I think the two situations are fairly different. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. The best intelligence that anybody can find, certainly that I can find, is that it will be at least a year before he does so and maybe five years."

January 06, 2003

"I personally believe hasn’t made his case"

January 10, 2003

"These are the young men and women who will be asked to risk their lives for freedom. We certainly deserve more information before sending them off to war."

January 29, 2003

"Terrorism around the globe is a far greater danger to the United States than Iraq. We are pursuing the wrong war,"

February 5, 2003

"We ought not to resort to unilateral action unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary of State and the president have not made a case that such an imminent threat exists.''

February 12, 2003

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/5236485.htm">Feb. 22, 2003

"Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.

February 27, 2003

Theirs is a radical view of our role in the world. The President who campaigned on a platform of a humble foreign policy has instead begun implementing a foreign policy characterized by dominance, arrogance and intimidation. The tidal wave of support and goodwill that engulfed us after the tragedy of 9/11 has dried up and been replaced by undercurrents of distrust, skepticism and hostility by many who had been among our closest allies.

This unilateral approach to foreign policy is a disaster. All of the challenges facing the United States – from winning the war on terror and containing weapons of mass destruction to building an open world economy and protecting the global environment – can only be met by working with our allies. A renegade, go-it-alone approach will be doomed to failure, because these challenges know no boundaries.

The largest, most sophisticated military in the history of the world cannot eliminate the threat of sleeper terrorist cells. That task requires the highest level of intelligence cooperation with our allies.

...

On day one of a Dean Presidency, I will reverse this attitude. I will tear up the Bush Doctrine. And I will steer us back into the company of the community of nations where we will exercise moral leadership once again.

April 17th, 2003

I think I'll add more to the list, just to rub it in.

How can you refer to his comments saying he would go through the UN, with war as a last resort, and then turn around and say he was anti-war???? If the only way the UN was going to get Iraqi cooperation was with threat of force, and Dean was anti-war, then Dean cannot say going to the UN was his plan.

That's why it so easy to string a list of links to show that Dean supports, well, almost anything.

Dean also said we should give Saddam a 60 day dealine, and then invade, even if we didn't get UN approval.

The media drove me nuts when they were doing that in the leadup to war.

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."

October 31st, 2002

He was against this unilateral war.

He was against this:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

He wanted Iraq disarmed through the UN, and to go to the UN first, and let inspections have time, and don't attack unilaterally unless it's absolutely the last resort and Iraq is an imminent threat.

If they want to believe obvious lies, let 'em.

"A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament" is not a "plan", it's a "goal". A "plan" would explain HOW the candidate would get NATO nations to send their troops to Iraq to get shot at. None of the candidates say HOW they're going to do what they're promising to do.

It's like saying "My plan to get the economy growing is I'm going to improve the economy"

then why would kerry call Dean out for not having one?

I mean, you make a good point, but it leaves questions floating around.

It's called "politics"

It's hilarious what you will brush off as politics. Did you have some sort of religious experience over the weekend?

It should be fun.

And I have religious experiences EVERY weekend.

Well have lots of fun watching you slowly forget your religious experience as the week drones on.

religious experiences every weekday

So do you

Methinks its just gas.

But I know what you're talking about. No way religion can supercede politics, right? Screw the nine commandments.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5364&news_iv_ctrl=1441

This is the original press release on April 9.
Washington, D.C. (April 9, 2003)

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."

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."

A plan would explain HOW Dean was going to get NATO involved. A plan would explain HOW we could transfer civilian authority to an int'l body, and HOW we would get the UN to approve that....

exactly how you would take action in 18 months. No one knows what the fuck will be happening in 18 months. Do you? Should all these candidates go on record without knowing the facts on the ground? What shape is the world going to be in in 18 months? Where will we be at war in 18 months?

To give an explicit plan right now would be foolish, if not only for the fact that Bush might do it before the election, stealing your thunder.

This is BUSH'S fucked up war and aftermath. Why should Democrats have to put up a plan 18 months in advance to try and solve a clusterfuck that could get far worse? Where's Bush's plan?

Why are the Democratic candidates being held to a standard that is not expected of the monkey in chief?

That's the same EXACT reason Bush* and his minions gave for not estimating how much it would cost to invade and rebuild Iraq. It's bullshit.

Furthermore, you completely ignore the issue here, which is whether or not Dean (and the other candidates) have a plan. Since you seem to think it's impossible to have a plan, then you must think that what Dean has posted is NOT a "Plan"

It is not their mess. To speak specifically about what to do about it is impossible, for obvious reasons. Although not obvious to you apparently. They won't be able to do a damn thing for 18 months, I say again, 18 months. Generalities are all that I would use right now because the situation in Iraq and North Korea, and elsewhere are fluid.

Save the "exact reason Bush and his minions gave" and the "ignore the issue" strawmen bullshit and try to get some sleep. Dream about your own special plan.

Dean tried that not too long ago and eventually corrected himself when he got a clue that Presidents can't pass the buck.

What plan? I don't see anything.

This is too fucking stupid to comment on. How can you post this shit and actually back this guy with a straight face? It's hilarious, completely hilarious.

For sharing particulars, you know, demonstrating how and why it is so hilarious. You really backed up your point with credible information. Good form!

with all those well-thought out one line responses defending a "plan" that, even you admit, is not a plan

Check out the exact quote from kerry!

It's funny!

He doesn't use the word plan at all. Kerry was never looking for specifics. This is once again, all Original pap coming from the Dean Bashers! A disorganized effort to change the subject from Kerry's downright IDIOTIC lies about Dean.

There are people here who are a perfect fit for Kerry. Bad memories, bad logic, lies. 24/7/365.

This isn't about Kerry. It's about Dean's "plan", though I realize your love/hate relationship causes you to think it's ALL about Kerry.

Even Kerry threads are about Dean. I know it isn't about Kerry. ANd I know you claim that no one has a plan, and I think you're wrong. Everyone has a vague plan. No one has specifics for reasons already discussed, but everyone has a rough plan. You're just squabbling over semantics. You probably consider this to be some form of political discourse, but you're just squabbling AGAIN.

No, nothing is ever about Kerry.

Sounds like "pragmatic idealism"

since no one has a plan, what WORD do you want to use? Just to clear up all of this apparent confusion. Outline would be better? Idea? Policy? Help us all out. Just this once we'll let YOU define it. Since it will apply equally to all the candidates, even you would be hard pressed to make it something that singles out Dean.

I pay far more attention to the candidates records, and not much to the propoganda they use to confuse people into voting for them.

You have stated a problem with the word "plan". So tell us what word to use. He has issued information regarding what needs to be done in Iraq. You are opposed to the word "plan" so what, In Your Opinion, should we call it? You started this fuss, so help us finish it.

And if you looked at records you'd note a certain vote cast in the senate in favor of the IWR by a certain man you appear to support, yet you seem to fall for the propaganda he uses to confiuse you into voting for him (He wanted to make it less horrible).

Whatever it is you think puts you above others here, it's a house built on the sand.

So please, so we can all move on with our lives, what word do you suggest we all adopt?

"Deanoramus"

none of the candidates had a plan, but all of the candidates have a deanoramus.

I think we asked the wrong person to define this for us. You piss and moan about the word PLAN being used, and this is the best you can come up with? Well, at least it proves my original observation correct. You have nothing of substance, but you do have original pap.

Never has. Never will.

I'm not even going to play into the concept that Dean has presented a legitimate debate with his little chart. No way. And since I am so furious as to not have a decent thing to say at this point, I will simply shut up.

Best to fume in silence.

please provide attributions.

.

I'm just asking for a little integrity. Asking the wrong person, as usual.

I suggest practicing it yourself.

n/t

as my recognizing monkeys when they come flying out of a pig's ass.

You'll recognize integrity when you recognize monkeys flying out of a pigs ass. And we know how often monkeys do that.

as you demonstrate integrity

I'm a dean supporter, therefore EVIL!

it must be true! :eyes:
NOTE: When presenting criticism of your candidate's views, expand your reading list beyond the campaign websites.

(Big Surprise)

One seldom finds criticism of their candidate on their candidate's site. Kinda goes against the purpose of the site.

If you want to look up Kerry's views, you go to his website or you call. I would not do a google search, when views are presented.

I go to Dean's site for facts about what he says.

You are so filled with hated of Dean, and of those of us who are his supporters. I do not understand why. I posted his stance on issues and it blew your mind. Why?

Fools ask a politician what s/he believes. I review what they've done in the past.

like voting for the IWR? Or everything EXCEPT that?

Including the IWR. IWR

So you think that voting for the IWR was the RIGHT thing to do?

.

I had no idea you were for war! That answers so many questions!

.

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

How could you vote against THAT?!?!

Your candidate claimed it didn't exist. The fact that it is on the blog, and was there before (many months before) your candidate said it didn't exist means it proves your candidate out and out lied.

What's funny? That Dean formally proposed goals for a post-war Iraq in April, when the other candidates were gloating over our victory and making "rah-rah America rules Saddam drools!" comments such as:

Saddam Hussein made a grave error when he chose to make war with the ultimate weapons-inspections enforcement mechanism - April 11th, 2003

Or that the other campaigns formally proposed those same goals months later?

I understand this is a little more complex than Dean's seven sentences, but it is assinine for anybody to say John Kerry has no plan. He has more military and foreign policy experience in his little finger NAIL than Dean will ever hope to have.

http://twq.com/01spring/kerry.pdf

http://www.ndol.org/blueprint/2002_sep_oct/17_terrorism.html

http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=189831

Kerry was saying Dean had no plan to deal with Iraq. Which is a lie. That's why the link was posted.

whats so very funny? Enlighten me

:freak:

Oh, here is Kerry's "plan" for review.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq_vision.html

"1. Share the military risk and cost. Show leadership at the United Nations by leading the creation of a UN military force under U.S. Command. The U.S. Military will still be in charge, but other big nations will send troops – they've said so – to relieve our overstretched soldiers.

2. Share the cost and responsibility of reconstruction. Show that we understand real partnership by reaching out to our allies, rebuilding the good will we squandered, and asking the UN to do what it has done well from Kosovo to East Timor by putting Iraqi governance and reconstruction under UN authority. It's not necessary for the U.S. to go it alone on rebuilding Iraq's institutions and meeting humanitarian needs – and we shouldn't have to.

3. Get going to train and equip a serious Iraqi security force. Just recruiting untrained soldiers and police does not create security – in fact, it creates insecurity. Extensive training and monitoring is vital, just as they are for new officers in any city police force. And reliable Iraqi forces are the key to minimizing the risks to U.S. forces while allowing for the successful reconstruction of the country – there's no way around it. Again, we don't have to do this without help from our friends – but we do have to ask our friends for help.

4. Give a clear timetable of benchmarks for turning power back to Iraqis quickly. Like anyone else, Iraqis want to know what the future holds. Washington should tell them – with a phased transfer of responsibility as Iraqi leaders and institutions are ready for it. Those institutions may not be perfect, but Iraqis will own them – and thank America."

Kerry has a "PLAN" ... Dean has a "PLAN" ...

Oh and (not to be a stickler) But... Dean's PLAN appears to have been in place long before Mr. Kerrys PLAN.

because Kerry has heard and understood the problem of Iraq for 13 years now.
Howard Dean: Welcome to foreign Policy.

But, I imagine you didn't check that out?

Just in case...Kerry's plan appears to have been constructed in September of 2003, and Dean's in April of 2003. :shrug:

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/releases/pr_2003_1001a.html

as opposed to Dean's detail-lite platform of generalized goals.

In fact, as madfloridian noted, Dean was the first to release specifics regarding plans for Iraq and other misc stuff.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_iraq_reconstruction

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/Search?query=iraq&inc=10&x=-1&y=-1

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=press_releases

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_speech_foreign_cfr

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_speech_foreign_drake

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_iraq_ontherecord

Can you share Kerry's more specific plan here? I can't locate it on his website, perhaps I'm overlooking something. :shrug: