8-18-05, 9:37 am
Question: How is Howard Dean like the Bible?
Answer: There is no position for which you cannot, with a little research, find both support and opposition in the pronouncements of Howard Dean.
Today [August 17] DailyHowler.com exulted: 'DEAN GETS IT! Hurrah! Hooray! A million kudos! Howard Dean says that Democrats have to start telling the truth!!!
Quite an accomplishment, no doubt, but is that ALL that Dean said? And what did he say about the war?
Here's the section of Dean's recent interview with CBS that elicited such cheering:
HARRIS: What are the activists in your party expecting from senators on the Roberts nomination? As I said, as long as I've been listening to you speak, your message has been consistent: The party's got to start fighting, stop getting along to go along, show some backbone.
DEAN: I think what activists are expecting is for them to be tough but fair. I mean, the hallmark of the Republicans is, Say anything. If you keep saying it people will believe it even if it's not true.
HARRIS: Does that work for them?
DEAN: I think it has worked for them because we haven't stood up and said, 'This is absolutely not true and therefore, you ought to be embarrassed to be saying so.' And we need to say that every single day. So we want to be tough but we want to be fair. I think the damage the Republicans have done to this country not just in the largest deficits in the history and this bumbling stuff that they've done in Iraq. The real damage they've done is they've undermined people's belief that democracy can work and the way to fight this is to be tough but fair.
Notice that Dean never says to tell the truth. He says to point out the Republicans' lies. He also fails to show much backbone. He refers to the illegal aggressive war on Iraq as 'this bumbling stuff they've done.'
The vast majority of Democrats strongly oppose the war, and many of those paying attention have long been wondering when Dean would get around to oppposing it too. Here's what he said in the CBS interview:
DEAN: Well, I think, first of all, we need a plan. The saddest article, in a series of very sad articles about people losing their lives--the saddest article I saw was in The Washington Post this morning, talking about the insiders of the administration saying, `Well, now we misjudged. We really can't achieve any of the things--or many of the things we said that we were going to achieve when we went.' Eighteen hundred and fifty Americans lose their lives because the president can't figure out what he's going to do, had no plan when we got there and has not plan when we get out.
First thing we need to do have a plan for leaving. And the second thing we need to do is to make sure that to the best of our ability we can influence the writing of the constitution. It looks like today, and this could change--as of today, it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq. That's a pretty sad commentary on this administration's ability to do anything right.
SCHIEFFER: Well, when you say, `We need to have a plan,' you mean a plan to leave?
DEAN: We do.
SCHIEFFER: A plan to get out?
DEAN: We need to have a plan to leave.
SCHIEFFER: Should we leave now?
DEAN: I think that's going to be very problematic. I mean, I think we've gotten in there, we've made a huge mess in there, we've created a terrorist danger for the United States where one did not exist before. But to pull out before they even have a chance to write their constitution I think is wrong. But I do think that time is coming very quickly. And if it turns out that this constitution really does take away the rights that women have enjoyed in Iraq before, then I can't imagine why we're there.
SCHIEFFER: Well, I'll go back and ask you about that in a minute, but I know the president said, and I think it was just this week, giving a timetable for leaving Iraq would be the worst thing we could do because it would just tell the people who oppose us there, `Look, all we have to do is hang in till they leave, and then we're OK.'
DEAN: We need to leave. We're not going to be there forever, I hope. We're not going to be there forever. So the question is: What is a reasonable way to get out? And that's--we have no answers from the president on that at all. He keeps saying--well, his administration appears to be divided. Some of the generals have said, `Well, we can withdraw some of the troops, perhaps as many as 30,000, after the elections.' We have others saying, `Well, we're not going to leave.' These people do not know what they're doing. They didn't know what they were doing when we got in, they had no plan then. They have no plan now. They do not know what they're doing.
HARRIS: Governor, you're the political leader of the Democratic Party. As you well know, many of the--your people in Congress, Democrats in Congress, voted for the war in 2002. Next year, 2006, do you expect this will be a good political issue for Democrats to run on, what you consider the president's failures on Iraq?
That's right. That is not a typo. Dean wants to NOT use an illegal war based on lies that has made us less safe and less well off and, in thousands of cases, wounded or dead, as a political issue. What does he propose to use as a political issue? Has he noticed that this is the biggest political issue in the media and in Congress whether he likes it or not? Unbelievable!
CBS News even seems to get it. After asking Dean whether Bush should meet with Cindy Sheehan (he said yes), the interviewer proceeded like this:
SCHIEFFER: Why do you suppose it is, though, Governor, that while people are losing confidence in the president's handling of the war that--and every poll suggests that--why do you suppose that people are not buying what Democrats are saying? They don't seem to be taking too much to the Democrats on that.
DEAN: I think they are buying what Democrats are saying. I think people believe that we need a plan to get our troops to come home. I think that people do understand now...
SCHIEFFER:: But if may say so...
DEAN: Sure.
SCHIEFFER:: ...I mean, saying we need a plan. I mean, sure, you need a plan, but do you have a plan? Is anybody working on a plan? What would you propose?
DEAN: Well, Bob, the president of the United States is commander in chief. It is up to him to come up for a plan. You can't expect a congressman and senators who don't have the same access to intelligence as the president does to come up with a plan to withdraw our troops from Iraq. We look--the president got us into Iraq 'cause people were willing to trust the president, even some Democrats were willing to trust the president in assuming he knew what he was doing. The problem is now that there's ample evidence to say that they didn't understand what they were getting into and they still don't know what we're doing there. They changed their goals. The troops are still not properly equipped. The constitution looks like it may take away freedom from the Iraq people, at least half of them, instead of added to them. What we need is a plan from the president of the United States. You can't expect a particular senator or particular congressman to have a plan. Only the president can do that.
It would be so much easier if this were a dictatorship, is, as I recall, how Bush put it.
Should we be shocked by this abject failure of the chair of the Democratic National Committee to acknowledge that he has a role to play in politics?
I'm not sure we should. I've collected a little evidence of why we should have seen it coming:
Dean was asked 'Over what period would you leave our troops in Iraq?'
HOWARD DEAN: Over a period of a few years, until the Iraqis really are able to have a democracy which is strong enough not to allow Al Qaeda to emerge and has a constitution that's widely enough respected so they will not have a fundamentalist Shiite regime. [ABC on Dec. 9, 2003, during presidential candidates debate.]
HOWARD DEAN: I do not agree with Dennis that we ought to just pull our troops out. I don't actually think that's what he is saying, he wants the U.N. to go in. I do, too, but it's going to be a gradual process, and it is not responsible to simply withdraw our troops from Iraq because the President has created a national security danger in Iraq when none existed before. [Des Moines Register presidential candidates debate, Jan. 4, 2004.]
HOWARD DEAN: You don't have a timetable in something like this. You leave when you can. I'm with Dennis -- I don't believe we can pull out in 90 days. I believe we should pull out as soon as we can, but I can't give you -- it's not responsible to give you a deadline because there's work to be done, and until the work is done we can't leave. [NPR debate Jan. 6, 2004.]
HOWARD DEAN: A hundred and thirty thousand troops in Iraq, with no end in sight and a price tag that goes up daily and the best my opponents can do is ask questions today that they should have asked before they supported the war. I opposed the war from the start because I want a foreign policy consistent with American values and I want to reclaim our rights and our liberties that were taken away in the name of patriotism. I'm Howard Dean and I approved this message because only you have the power to restore the dignity and respect that our country deserves. [Dean Campaign television ad.]
HOWARD DEAN: Only Dennis had the courage to vote against the war. [Nov. 24, 2003, presidential candidates debate.]
HOWARD DEAN: I am the only one who opposed the war from the start and opposed spending another $87 billion there. I have offered up a blueprint to succeed where Bush and the Administration's Democratic supporters have failed. [Dean campaign brochure.]
HOWARD DEAN: I am the only major candidate for President who opposed the war from the start. [Dean campaign brochure.]
Dean was asked 'Do you believe in spending $87 billion to keep our troops in Iraq? Because I don't. Do you?'
HOWARD DEAN: Yes. [Oct. 10, 2003, presidential candidates debate on CNN.]
HOWARD DEAN: Well, as you know, I have a reputation for saying exactly what I think. And while the words may not be precise, the meaning is not hard to figure out. [Des Moines Register presidential candidates debate, Jan. 4, 2004.]
HOWARD DEAN: I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the long run. Now that we're there, we're stuck there, and the administration has no plan for how to deal with it, and we cannot leave because losing the peace is not an option. We cannot leave Iraq. [Aug. 12, 2003, on ' Buchanan & Press' on MSNBC]
HOWARD DEAN: I disagree with Dennis, because the reason is, yes 18 year old young women should be able to register, and the reason for that is that if you have different standards, that begins the path towards discrimination.
HOWARD DEAN: I'm not in Congress. [Spoken to a reporter on Sep. 8, 2003, when asked whether he would spend $87 billion more on Iraq. Cited by Tom Curry of MSNBC in Dec. 18, 2003, column.]
HOWARD DEAN: I doubt that very much. I'm running for president. I'll tell you what I'm going to do, but I'm not going to tell you how I face an issue that is not of my making. [Quoted by Tom Curry of MSNBC in Dec. 18, 2003, column.]
HOWARD DEAN: I want a foreign policy that is consistent with American values. I find it hard to believe that I'm the only major candidate running, who's in reasonably good shape in the polls, who voted 'No' on the Iraq Resolution. [Speech to Take Back America Conference, June 5, 2003.]
HOWARD DEAN: I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. He is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents, and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. [February 17, 2003, statement on Dean campaign website.]
HOWARD DEAN: I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States, ever. [Dec. 10, 2003, news conference in Concord, N.H., quoted in Dec. 18, 2003, Los Angeles Times.]
HOWARD DEAN: There's no question Saddam is a threat to the U.S. and our allies. [Sep. 29, 2002, 'Face the Nation' on CBS.]
HOWARD DEAN: Senator Lieberman said that we were safer now that Saddam has been caught; I beg to differ. Since Saddam Hussein has been caught -- who's a dreadful person. I'm delighted to see him behind bars, and I hope he gets what he deserves. But the fact is, since Saddam Hussein has been caught, we've lost 23 additional troops; we now have, for the first time, American fighter jets escorting commercial airliners through American airspace. [Des Moines Register presidential candidates debate, Jan. 4, 2004]
HOWARD DEAN: A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament….A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period. [April 9, 2003, statement on Dean campaign website – Almost sounds like a PLAN!.]
HOWARD DEAN: I don't agree with Dennis about cutting the Pentagon budget when we're in the middle of difficulty with terror attacks. [Rainbow/PUSH forum on June 22, 2003, as reported by Slate.]
HOWARD DEAN: I think it would be foolish to reduce spending on defense at a time when we're under threat. I disagree with the President about what those threats are, but here's what we need money for: we need money to buy the uranium and plutonium stockpiles of Russia, which this president is not doing. We need money to change our oil policy. We need to inspect the 98% of cargo containers that come into this country uninspected. We need money to give to the states to help them in homeland security. So I think cutting our defense and homeland security budgets is a mistake. I would reallocate it in a different way than the president does because I don't think the president has defended this country as much as he's talked about. [New Hampshire Public Radio, July 1, 2003]
HOWARD DEAN: Effective missile defense will be an important part of a Dean Administration's national and homeland security strategy. In the recent Iraq War, we saw our tactical missile defenses effectively engage short-range missile attacks. Over time, our capabilities will expand to longer-range threats, and this is why President Clinton had authorized moving toward a ground-based missile defense for the United States, doing so on a time table that would ensure that the deployment would be capable of actually responding to an attack. A sound program of tactical, theatre and long-range missile defense can enhance our security but only if the systems work and the costs do not keep us from achieving other critical military objectives. The Bush program fails on both counts. It is rushing an untested anti-ICBM system, overspending and not utilizing proven methods of weapons development. My priority will be to integrate missile defense into an overall national and homeland security effort which provides real defense for Americans at home and our forces and friends and allies abroad. [Answers to Council on a Livable World questionnaire on defense subjects.]
HOWARD DEAN: I am going to balance the budget, and I'm going to do it in the sixth or seventh year of my administration. [Des Moines Register presidential candidates debate, Jan. 4, 2004.]
HOWARD DEAN: Space-based assets are an essential component of our nation's security - and crucial to our military's effectiveness. The United States utilizes space for intelligence, communications, navigation, and as part of the architecture of many of our weapons systems. For example, the precision-guided munitions which we have developed - and which allow us to avoid reliance on nuclear weapons - depend in significant part on navigation and communication satellites. As another example, the value of our Special Forces is greatly enhanced through their ability to rely on space assets. Technological development in space will continue and we should not reduce the technological advantages that our military enjoys by prohibiting the use of space for military activities. [Answers to Council on a Livable World questionnaire on defense subjects.]
HOWARD DEAN: Here at home, we need a real commitment to homeland security. As President, I would immediately devote significant new resources to preventing, managing and responding to potential and actual terrorist threats here at home. If we can spend $400 billion to defend our nation from threats abroad, as we must, should we not spend more to defend our nation at home? [June 25, 2003, statement on Dean campaign website.]
HOWARD DEAN: Actually, the reason I don't think we can afford to cut the Pentagon budget is we're not safe enough. I'm with Dick Gephardt. [NPR debate, Jan. 6, 2004]
HOWARD DEAN: As I said, I'm -- as I was about to say, I'm with Dick Gephardt. I don't believe we ought to build tactical, battlefield nuclear weapons because they're not effective against terrorists. I don't think we should build out Star Wars because it's failed too many tests. But our soldiers aren't getting paid enough. We don't have adequate intelligence, either human intelligence or cyber- intelligence. We don't have adequate special ops forces, which is what the forces we really need to attack terrorism is. So I don't think that you can say you're going to cut the defense budget and still defend the United States of America. I don't want to build some of the programs that you don't want to build. But the needs are there, and I don't think we're going to have a net cut in the defense budget. [NPR debate, Jan 6, 2004]
HOWARD DEAN: I would endorse a pre-emptive strike against Iraq only if it can be proven that Saddam Hussein has access to weapons of mass destruction and the means to discharge them. [Sep. 23, 2002, Iowa City Press Citizen.]
HOWARD DEAN: It’s very simple. Here’s what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, ‘If you don’t do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq. [Sep. 29, 2002, 'Face the Nation' on CBS.]
HOWARD DEAN: Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. 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. [Paraphrase of Dean's oft-repeated position by Salon's Jake Tapper on Feb. 19, 2003.]
HOWARD DEAN: I’m not going to back off my criticism of the president’s policy, but I’m certainly going to change the tone. There won’t be the kind of red meat remarks that you make in front of partisan Democratic audiences. [Associated Press article, March 20, 2003, in context of war beginning in Iraq.]
--David Swanson is creator of MeetWithCindy.org, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997. His website is http://www.davidswanson.org.
