Dean pushed for war in Bosnia

[jegs2]

From this story:

Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean, a strong critic of what he calls President Bush's unilateral approach to foreign policy, urged President Clinton to act unilaterally and enter the war in Bosnia in 1995. (Related item: Text of letter)
"I have reluctantly concluded that the efforts of the United States and NATO in Bosnia are a complete failure," he wrote, citing reports of genocide during the Bosnian civil war. "If we ignore these behaviors ... our moral fiber as a people becomes weakened. ... We must take unilateral action."

The July 19, 1995, letter, obtained by USA TODAY, was written on Dean's official stationery as Vermont governor. The language appears to contradict Dean's core complaint that President Bush has followed a unilateral foreign policy, instead of a multilateral approach that relies on consultation and joint action with allies. He has repeatedly attacked Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

Oops, there goes part of his argument against Bush...

[Chardok]

Alot of things can be learned in 7 years, Sir. With all due respect, my view on things have changed ALOT since 1995. I fail to see how this has any relevance. If his stance on the current situation has been concrete throughout, then this is not a strike against his arguments.

[theski]

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM I smell another Dean flip flop......



almost as many as "General Clark"

[Iceberg]

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM I smell another Dean flip flop......



almost as many as "General Clark"

People keep holding up opinions that Dean held nine to eleven years ago, comparing them to what he's said in the past year, and calling any difference a "flip-flop," or worse, "hypocrisy." I'd be rather surprised if the man held any of the same opinions as he did in 1993-5 now (at least, if he held the same opinions in the same way and for exactly the same reasons). To be logically consistent, Bush has "flip-flopped" FAR worse, far more frequently and with far more drastic consequences since he took office (a difference of only 2-3 years - Jon Stewart's "Candidate Bush vs. President Bush" "debate" segment on an episode of The Daily Show is quite enlightening on this score).

Come on. This is worse than immature, this is childish.

[theski]

Iceberg wrote:

People keep holding up opinions that Dean held nine to eleven years ago, comparing them to what he's said in the past year, and calling any difference a "flip-flop," or worse, "hypocrisy." I'd be rather surprised if the man held any of the same opinions as he did in 1993-5 now (at least, if he held the same opinions in the same way and for exactly the same reasons). To be logically consistent, Bush has "flip-flopped" FAR worse, far more frequently and with far more drastic consequences since he took office (a difference of only 2-3 years - Jon Stewart's "Candidate Bush vs. President Bush" "debate" segment on an episode of The Daily Show is quite enlightening on this score).

OK.. here are much more recent ones...

. North Korea

In January, Dean said on CBS' Face the Nation that he approved of Bush's policy towards North Korea and agreed with the president that the approach will be successful
Just one month later, Dean flip-flopped without explanation, describing Bush's North Korea policy as "incoherent, inconsistent and dangerously disengaged

In March, Dean promised to raise a fuss if any of the other candidates decided to abandon spending limits and skip public financing.
Last month, Dean said his campaign was "exploring" the possibility of opting out of the public financing system because of his success in raising money and his desire to spend more in the primaries than his opponents. He said he "didn't remember" making earlier promises to the contrary and said his campaign was free to "change our mind."

In August 2003, Dean said U.S. troops need to stay in Iraq. "It's a matter of national security," Dean said. "If we leave and we don't get a democracy in Iraq, the result is very significant danger to the United States."

In last week's debate in Albuquerque, Dean completely reversed course, saying, "We need more troops. They're going to be foreign troops, not more American troops, as they should have been in the first place. Ours need to come home."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/ar ... 00622.html


There are more at the link ..

[Chardok]

President Bush has reneged on one of his most explicit campaign pledges to protect the environment. He promised last September, during the heat of the campaign against pro-environment opponent Al Gore, to push for regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Now Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking for the president, says that pledge "was a mistake."

http://www.climateark.org/articles/2001 ... flflop.htm

After months of selling the war on Iraq as justified because of 9-11, W. last week declared "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September the 11th."

So, Georgie - you are admitting that you lied, correct?

Link

When I heard that George W. Bush had imposed 30% steel tariffs I remembered something, I remembered that in his election campaign he was staunchly pro-free trade. Indeed in on his campaign website he promised that...

"Like all Americans, Governor Bush wants to see improved working conditions world-wide.

The best way to address this issue is not through unilateral trade sanctions, but through international agreements. That's why Governor Bush supports international reform efforts, such as the International Labor Organization's "Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labor," and the World Trade Organization provision that permits member countries to ban imports made by prison labor.

At the same time we must guard against countries using labor standards as an excuse to erect protectionist barriers. The primary goal of our trade policy should be to open markets abroad because the better way to raise living and working standards is to increase trade."

What's more he kept plugging free trade as often as he could. Post 9/1 the president announced that the attack on New York was an attack on "free trade". "We will keep our country open," he insisted, "and our markets open for business." Until now. These tariffs represent more than a cynical U-turn designed to win more votes in rust belt states; they also show the quite explicit breaking of election promises.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/ar ... trade.html




Why, Chardok? Why post all this tripe about our glorious dicta-er-pupp-er-president? The point is, we can go tit-for-tat on position flip flops all day long. In the end, we still have a partially coherent monkey for a president, who is not even well-spoken. Which, admittedly, may be a nitpick, but I shudder to think of what the entire world thinks of our top representative. I surmise the only reason they haven't outright called him a mafioso dickhead dumbass to his face is because they're afraid he'll invent a reason to invade. Make no mistake, the feeling that I get from the world at large is one of quite stringent anti-americanism and IMHO we have no one to thank more than President George W. Bush. Clinton lies about porking an intern, and we move to impeach, George W. Bush lies about going to war with Iraq, and he's a damned hero? He's responsible for the deaths of hundreds of americans in Iraq, and the wounding/maiming of over 8,000 others (The soldiers sent home for being too sick/wounded/etc. to fight.) and plunging us into one of the worst budget deficits EVER, and he's a damned hero? Give me a fucking break, please. It's is PAINFULLY obvious that George W. Bush does not have the intelligence to debate his way through a piece of wet crepe paper and that he's a puppet of his higher-level cabinet. The man is a fucking dipshit moron asshole, who can't even remember the correct wording to common Cliches.

When I look at how the Bush Administration is run, I'm reminded of the city bosses of old. If that monkey-faced piece of lying no-good flip flopping shit-brained asshat palmfucking dumbfucked shit is re elected, it is truly a SAD, SAD commentary on society in the U.S. as a whole, and I weep for the future. The american people need to stand up and say "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Or can we?

[/rant off]

[theski]

Chardok..... you linked to DU??????

does this mean I can like to Protest warrior or Right Nation??

[Chardok]

Carpetbaggerreport doesn't seem much better, there, killer.

[Wicked Pilot]

I approve of both the Kosovo campaign, and our invasion of Iraq. But in neither situation did I believe that the administrations were being fully honest with the public as to their real motivations behind the war. Obviousily it is easier to trust a president when they are in your own party.

[Master of Ossus]

Iceberg, I disagree completely with your position that it's somehow childish to ask a candidate about their prior statements and beliefs. Dean himself criticizes "Gotcha" politics , but frankly when a political figure says something then unless there's CLEAR evidence that he's changed his views and an explanation on why, the public has the right to ask that politician questions about their beliefs. Moreover, you are subscribing to the logical fallacy of believing that a candidate must change all of his views every few years. Unless there's evidence that the guy has changed his mind about something, there's no reason to believe that he will have, and therefore it's fair game to ask him about his prior statements--particularly since he made this statement after becoming a politician, and it was a written statement as opposed to a verbal one made in the heat of the moment.

[MKSheppard]

Oops, there goes part of his argument against Bush...

DAMN YOU JEGS!

I saw this while reading the paper at work today...damn you!

[MKSheppard]

In other news, Howie Dean is revealed to be a hypocritical son of a bitch,
same as 99% of all the other politicians in America....

[MKSheppard]

I mean come on! We should have pushed for more consensus and
gotten the Europeans on board back in Bosnia instead of doing our
own thing

[Illuminatus Primus]

I approve of both the Kosovo campaign, and our invasion of Iraq. But in neither situation did I believe that the administrations were being fully honest with the public as to their real motivations behind the war. Obviousily it is easier to trust a president when they are in your own party.

How do you justify Kosovo? That was even more a sham than Iraq.

[Vympel]

To Wicked Pilot's credit, at least he knows what Kosovo is. Brit Hume was on Fox a few hours ago conflating Kosovo (1999) and Bosnia (1995) as if they were remotely the same place.

[JME2]

From this story:

Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean, a strong critic of what he calls President Bush's unilateral approach to foreign policy, urged President Clinton to act unilaterally and enter the war in Bosnia in 1995. (Related item: Text of letter)
"I have reluctantly concluded that the efforts of the United States and NATO in Bosnia are a complete failure," he wrote, citing reports of genocide during the Bosnian civil war. "If we ignore these behaviors ... our moral fiber as a people becomes weakened. ... We must take unilateral action."

The July 19, 1995, letter, obtained by USA TODAY, was written on Dean's official stationery as Vermont governor. The language appears to contradict Dean's core complaint that President Bush has followed a unilateral foreign policy, instead of a multilateral approach that relies on consultation and joint action with allies. He has repeatedly attacked Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

Oops, there goes part of his argument against Bush...

Yeah, except NATO went in to stop ethnic cleansing which had been documented. Bush went into Iraq to stop 'WMD' which we're going to be waiting on for a long time...

[Master of Ossus]

Yeah, except NATO went in to stop ethnic cleansing which had been documented. Bush went into Iraq to stop 'WMD' which we're going to be waiting on for a long time...

Way to miss the entire point. Regardless of whether or not the two wars were justified, Howard Dean is attacking Bush for doing the EXACT SAME THING that he praised Bill Clinton for doing. From that standpoint, the two conflicts are the exact same. Either Dean has radically changed his viewpoints on war in the last few years, or he flip-flopped for political reasons. Either way, this doesn't say good things about his presidential chances.

[Joe]

Yeah, except NATO went in to stop ethnic cleansing which had been documented. Bush went into Iraq to stop 'WMD' which we're going to be waiting on for a long time...

You think it was a good idea to go into Kosovo to put a stop to the entirely fictional mass murders that were supposedly occuring there, yet you think it was a bad idea to go into Iraq to put a stop to the very real mass murders that were taking place in that country (nevermind the fact that WMD was the given reason for the war; the results would have been the same either way). Why?

[JME2]

Yeah, except NATO went in to stop ethnic cleansing which had been documented. Bush went into Iraq to stop 'WMD' which we're going to be waiting on for a long time...

You think it was a good idea to go into Kosovo to put a stop to the entirely fictional mass murders that were supposedly occuring there, yet you think it was a bad idea to go into Iraq to put a stop to the very real mass murders that were taking place in that country (nevermind the fact that WMD was the given reason for the war; the results would have been the same either way). Why?

Because I'm not going to incite any more flame wars, I'll mkae this brief. SH had to be taken out, I won't deny that. I just didn't like the pretense that was used.

And as for supposedly occuring mass murders that some keep denying, three words: The Armenian Genocide.

[Invader ZIm]

Ok so let me get this straight...

Dean endorses the use of unilaterial military force applied by the United States on any of the following conditions:

1. A direct attack on the United States.

2. An attack on one of the United States allies, or NATO Alliance.

3. Pursuant to ending a humanitarian crisis or "unwarranted human suffering" and atrocities. (Stated in his letter to Clinton http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel ... tter_x.htm)


Dean is either consistant in his views or he isnt. Its hypocrisy to apply these standards to the use of force in Kosovo but not Iraq.

[Vympel]

With regards to 3, I believe what the Dean camp said was an ongoing one, not one that happened while the US looked the other way while shaking the perpetrators hand.

[Stravo]

With regards to 3, I believe what the Dean camp said was an ongoing one, not one that happened while the US looked the other way while shaking the perpetrators hand.

So Iraqis WEREN'T be tortured and killed up to the invasion itself?

[Vympel]

So Iraqis WEREN'T be tortured and killed up to the invasion itself?

I presume they were- is that genocide/ ethnic cleansing? (what was claimed was happening in Kosovo & Bosnia, and which was bullshit and/or onesided). I doubt you'll find Dean saying that everytime some scumbag kills a citizen the US should be there dropping bombs.

[Wicked Pilot]

How do you justify Kosovo? That was even more a sham than Iraq.

A sham in what way? Are you saying that the motivations behind Clinton's actions were less than honest, or are you saying that the Serbians are really just nice folks who were basically misunderstood?

[Joe]

So Iraqis WEREN'T be tortured and killed up to the invasion itself?

I presume they were- is that genocide/ ethnic cleansing? (what was claimed was happening in Kosovo & Bosnia, and which was bullshit and/or onesided). I doubt you'll find Dean saying that everytime some scumbag kills a citizen the US should be there dropping bombs.

Hey, he supported a Liberia intervention solely on a humanitarian basis.