Regarding the DNC Chair ......

[H2O Man]

{1} "Where's the Outrage?" by Joe Klein
"John Kerry chose not to mention Abu Ghraib once during the presidential debates and, further, chose not to raise the issue of Bush Administration complicity because, I am told, his advisors were afraid that the Republicans would paint him weak on the war on terrorism. Of course, Kerry's defining weakness was his unwillingness to say anything his aides thought would make him sound weak, even if it was palpably true and important and he believed it."
- TIME; 1-17-05; page 21

{2} "Youth in a Time of Revolution" by Malcolm X
"I don't believe in any form of unjustified extremism, but I believe if a human being is exercising extremism in the defense of liberty, it's no vice. And when one is moderate in the pursuit of justice for human beings, I say he's a sinner. And I might add in my conclusion -- in fact, America is one of the best examples, when you read its history. Old Patrick Henry said 'liberty or death' -- that's extreme, very extreme."
- Oxford Union Society debate; 12-3-64

A number of people are discussing, and even debating, the issues involving the choice for the next DNC Chairperson. On Tuesday, Chris Heinz posted his thoughts on Simon Rosenburg. That same afternoon, Howard Dean announced his plans to run for the position. In many ways, this will be one of the single most important decisions democrats will make in the next two years.

We know that a significant part of the duties of the DNC Chair is to "organize." Specifically, the Chair organizes with the goal of raising two resources: the names and addresses of democrats, and financial contributions. The current DNC Chair has done a record-setting job in both areas. Yet, when we look at the election results from 2000, 2002, and 2004, most of us could agree that the list of e-mail addresses and a fat purse is not enough to win elections.

The DNC Chairperson must help define what ideas and values the democratic party must represent. And I believe that the war in Iraq should be the litmus test today.

Despite what George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Uncle Armstrongs in the main-stream media may say, we know the war is not going well. It's not going as well as they say, because they have lied to us from "day one" about WMDs being the reason the USA had to invade Iraq. And no matter how admirable our soldiers may be, the politicians who have sent them into Iraq are responsible for the situation.

On page 36 of TIME (1-17-05) there is an important article, "Where Are The New Recruits?" by Mark Thompson. The article makes clear that the military leaders recognize that are military is "rapidly degenerating into a broken force." By the end of 2005, the military will face a crisis that can only be resolved by instituting a military draft.

The draft is a social/economic class sensitive system. Up until WW2, a "fair" percentage of the sons of the wealthy and politically powerful could be found in the military. They may not have always been on the front lines, but in many cases -- such as the Kennedy family -- they certainly were.

But this is certainly not the case from Viet Nam on. We know that Howard Dean and Bill Clinton did not serve in a war they felt was simply wrong. John Kerry was the exception to the general rule, because although he thought the war was wrong, and could have avoided it, he served honorably. But fellows like George W., Danny Quayle, and Dick Cheney defined the rule that certain young people were exempt from fighting the wars they favored.

The war in Iraq is being fought on the shoulders of youth from the low- and moderate-income families. Michael Moore commented on this in his movie "F 9/11." A draft will send young men from the middle class and below to protect the administration's investment in Iraq.

As the father of two draft-aged sons, and the uncle of several draft-aged nephews, this is the single most important issue today. If one of my sons were to die in Iraq, job opportunities in upstate New York are no longer as significant. If a nephew were to die in Iraq, his educational opportunities are non-existant.

Thus, I'm most concerned about how the DNC Chair will organize around the reality of the war in Iraq, and the related issue of the draft. We know that Howard Dean was a minority in the democratic primaries, because he had been strongly opposed to the Bush invasion of Iraq from day one. The main-stream media made Dean sound like an extremist.

One the other hand, a number of the responses to Chris Heinz's post mentioned that Simon Rosenburg is a long-time supporter of the invasion in Iraq. I read the press release linked to the Chris Heinz post, and some other articles on Rosenburg. None seemed to tell what his position on Iraq is.

I asked Chris Heinz about this. There are over 400 posts on that thread, and I recognize that not every question will be answered. Yet, for those of us in the middle- and lower-income groups, with family members that are draft-age, it is not a question we can afford to ignore.


For more on this and related issues, please see:
http:h2oman.blogspot.com

[Me.]

1. For Me. The War Isn't The only Issue

Though it is reflective of the overall dishonesty of an administration that came into office with what I feel is a "Roosevelt" busting mentality. The war in Iraq is certainly the biggest example of manipulation of the many for the goals of a few, whatever the cost.

The ***H group is one big, execrable mass of distortion who wouldn't know truth or ethics if it slapped them in the face. But we knew that would be the way of it when he was elected. What we didn't know was that, for the most part, the dem leadership would lie down and let him walk all over them. So far only one senator stood up for the vote. How many will cave and vote for Gonzales and Chertoff? Will they give up social security in their going along to get along? Where the hell is the spine of this party? This is why the choice of DNC leader has become so important. And those of us out here in the fray are waiting to see if we are abandoned once again.

I've heard and read recently that the thinking is now, in many circles, that they should begin paying attention to their base. I read, I think here on DU, that with the exception of 15%, most people knew exactly who they were going to vote for. Thus the WH strategy was to play to their base and keep them reeled in, the dems didn't play to their base, they tried to play to the other's base. Well that certainly didn't work, and we had to put up with a lot of nonsense along the way. So if they want to keep us I suggest they do better by us than picking a DNC chair who is still in that "we have to play to their base" headset.

[DaedelusNemo]

2. I agree..... but what's the policy recommendation?

Iraq is such a mess right now that it's arguable that just pulling out will cause even bigger problems. While i certainly agree that it shouldn'ta been done, what i want to know now is: what concrete steps do you think we should take?

Hm, i'd like to put forth a proposal myself, but i think my brain is paralyzed on that subject until we see what happens in the elections.

[H2O Man]

3. I do not believe

that the USA can play any positive role in Iraq under the Bush Administration. Because our only choices right now are to {1} make things worse, and {2} withdraw, I think that we need to withdraw.

I think we can break it down into two easy to understand questions: the first is should we have invaded Iraq to begin with? And to keep this simple, we need to discuss it in terms of the reason the administration gave originally. And that was that Iraq had WMDs that posed an immediate threat to the USA.

I am not interest in the dozen other "reasons" that the liars in the administration have given since it became obvious that the original reason was a purposeful lie. Did Iraq have WMD that posed an immediate threat to us? No. So we should not have invaded.

Next, is there any reason to believe that Bush, Cheney, and/or Rumsfeld have the moral or intellectual capacity to improve things in Iraq? Of course not. Withdraw.

Will there be violence and bloodshed when we leave? Yes, just as there is now. But our staying can only increase the level of violence, and cause it to be prolonged.

I hope that DUers will consider the significance of letting people like Chris Heinz know that we do not want our kids to be sent to kill and die in Iraq. I believe that he is a good and decent man. But he cannot understand what the war means to people in the middle- and lower economic classes, unless we tell him. I do not mean it as an insult, just the simple truth: his experience with Iraq and a draft will be limited to that of an on-looker. He and the rich folks who make the policies -- or support the Bush policies -- that send American youth to Iraq have extremely limited contact with the masses. I think Chris should explain where he and his friend Simon stand on Iraq. I'm not interested in a press release that says Simon's friends really like him a lot, and he's a great organizer. I want to know where he stands on Iraq.

[coeur_de_lion]

4. As the aunt of three draft-age nephews . . . .

I agree with your assertion that we must withdraw. We can't afford to continue to fight with the the angry Iraqis, and the allow the terrorists that have bee drawn to Iraq to pick off out boys over there continually.

No to mention the "collateral damage" of (over 100,000 I hear) Iraqi citizens whose only sin was to have Saddam Hussein as a dictator. We've replaced his dictatorship, with it's mayhem and murder, to a military dictatorship with even more mayhem and murder. All under the guise of protecting the American people from evildoers.

Under this administration all we have to look forward to in Iraq is more of the same. They'll never accept us, and who can blame them after we've killed so many of their citizens?

We need to withdraw. There was a time when I thought that even though we were there under false pretenses, we should make a graceful exit and make sure there is responsible leadership in Iraq. But it becomes more and more clear every day that they are not going to stand for this and I don't blame them. They don't want out "responsible leadership" in Ira any more then we want it here.

John Kerry did the country a disservice by ignoring the problem of Iraq and this may have had a lot to do with his "losing" the election. Now we are stuck with Rumsfeld and Cheney, neither of whom could fight his way out of a paper bag, and they can't help but screw up even more over there.

Howard Dean may be strong enough to make the war a central issue in the Democratic Party -- he certainly did during the primaries. I think he's a far better choice than the man Chris Heinz proposed. I hope the Democratic party sees this and allows Dr. Dean to become chair of the DNC.

[H2O Man]

5. I think it's great

that aunts and uncles speak out. I imagine it is hard for Chris Heinz to understand what Iraq represents for the majority of American families. I give him credit, because I believe that he does try. Most people in his position do not even do that.

My goal isn't to have this be a situation similar to when RFK met with James Baldwin and friends to discuss Civil Rights. I'm not trying to put Chris on the "hot seat." But I am intent upon keeping kids like my kids out of the cemetery.

I continue to hope for a response. But, as Beatle John was known to say, "A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words."


http://h2oman.blogspot.com

[coeur_de_lion]

13. you know I didn't even think about this but . . .

I have a niece too. She is the baby of the family. I would hate to see my favorite (only) niece go to Iraq.

I don't see an end to this madness any time soon and it makes me sad. I want to be a country of peace again and I wonder when that will ever happen. Certainly not for the next 4 years.

Speaking of Lennon, I very briefly watched a Tsunami relief special on TV tonight. I head to turn the channel when some blond singer (I believe it was Madonna) started singing "Imagine." Now I like Madonna, and I have a tremendous respect for her guts and for her talent as a singer. She even supported my favorite candidate during the primaries. But to have her sing Imagine was more than I could handle. If they wanted to portray that song the way it was meant to be, they should have shown the video of John singing and playing Imagine on the piano while Yoko opened all the blinds in the room. I can't look at Madonna the same way I do Lennon. Maybe some day she'll work as hard for world peace as he did. but now . . .

Yoko had to have given her permission for Madonna to sing that song. But I wish she hadn't.

Well, that's all I have to say about that.

Keep up the good fight brother H2O.

[H2O Man]

21. The military draft

may include females for some positions. However, the military leaders are looking for males for the combat positions. The young men in the United States will be drafted into the front line positions.

I saw a bit of the program last night, for Tsunami relief. I didn't see the Imagine cover. Some other group did "Axis: Bold as Love," one of Jimi Hendrix's old songs. While I like the originals better, I'm encouraged to see the current artists pay tribute to the Lennons and the Hendrix's.

[EFerrari]

6. Last night, a group of us in real time were talking about "occupation".

The term sounds so neat, so abstracted. Nothing can be further from the truth. People are dying, are going hungry, are being brutalized. And will, for some time to come.

When we leave things will get worse but maybe then the international community can step in. This so called "election" has no credibility with the people and too many have died already trying to enact the fig leaf that Bush needs to withdraw.

The alternative is to expand the window on the dying and the misery. We need to get out immediately. Even Jim Baker has recognized that.

Does anyone running for Chair have a grasp of this fact? Sorry, have been working the vote fraud and really don't know.

/grammar

[H2O Man]

7. My impression is that

Howard Dean has the best understanding of this. I hate to say this, but I think that deep down, the other candidates know this. But they are afraid to be considered "weak" on defense issues, especially terrorism. But, as we know, Iraq was not connected to our problems with terrorism, and they did not have WMDs to attack us or anyone else with.

I had hoped that this issue could be more thoroughly discussed, including with those who advocated Simon Rosenburg on DU earlier in the week. Iraq is becoming more of a VietNam daily. The damage it has done to that country is almost beyond description. It is no wonder why people in Iraq would consider this country their real enemy. As Rev. King said of the Vietnamese in his prophetic speech "A Time To Break Silence": "They must see Americans as strange liberators. .... We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. we have destryed their land and their crops. (King spoke about the destruction of their religious institutions, which has certainly been true in Iraq as well.) What liberators!"

More, just like in the VietNam era, the president's preoccupation with "winning" and forcing his will on a foreign country is costing the USA all of the money that could and indeed should be used on humanitarian investments, both domestically and internationally.

Our current policy is one of insanity. We do not need politicians who look to advance their careers and expand their "power" by taking a "moderate" position of agreement with Bush/Cheney. They are on the wrong side of history and humanity.

[EFerrari]

8. I see we tend to agree on Iraq. Frankly, I can't go there much

as very soon I get War of Conquest Tourettes.

Someone intimated to me that Rosenburg is a Zionist. That is, someone who believes the state of Isreal is above internatinal law. In your opinion, is there any truth to this?

I've read a lot of rants against Isreal. And don't mean to tar the people with the governing brush. But neither do I want to minimize legit concerns.

[EFerrari]

9. Oops! I just remembered DU has rules about this topic.

Sorry. I'll go read them. Didn't mean to ruffle or irk. Beth

[H2O Man]

10. We can discuss this

rationally, and then there is no problem. I will start by saying I don't know enough about Simon Rosenburg to say anything about his positions. The fact that Chris Heinz would advocate for him on DU interested me. I like what I've seen of Chris. And so I began to read about Simon, and the thing that stood out was his support of the Bush invasion/occupation of Iraq.

A person can have a very different belief about that subject from me, and I'm always willing to discuss the issues involved. However, I do not feel that anyone can make a strong case for Bush's invasion. I note that Wolfowitz stated publicly that when the administration was planning the invasion, they concluded that the WMD "threat" was the one pretense everyone could agree upon. And we know it was a lie. So I do not fear an even heated debate when the strongest position the other side has is a lie.

I'm more concerned, however, that if Simon Rosenburg really believes that we should be in Iraq, that he is running for DNC chair. Put that on ice, and don that National Guard uniform that will show us how strongly you believe, Mr. Rosenburg. Do not opt for other people putting their lives on the line while you sit in comfort.

Other opinions do not bother me. Hypocrisy does. And a willingness to send young Americans to kill and die for a lie, simply because it may propel a person's political career, strikes me as cowardly and immoral.

[EFerrari]

11. Thanks for the civility. I've homework to do before discussing

Rosenburg vs any contenders. I don't know him and should.

This is such an important moment. I'm nearly 50 and have NEVER seen such unity among progressives. Like to do that kind of concern, justice.

[H2O Man]

12. I must admit

that I don't know Rosenburg either. I read the press release Chris Heinz linked, plus another couple related articles. They all had a few things in common: Simon is a nice guy; his friends like him; he has valuable experience that will help the party; he's a good organizer.

I've yet to see a press release where a candidate's friend say,"I like him okay, but wouldn't trust him for the job." I'm not interested in that weak stuff. We're in an national emergency, and international crises. Let's talk shop.

The press release says that Simon wants to attract Hispanics to the democratic party. What does that mean? Do we want to vote in favor of Gonzales for Attorney General in order to attract more voters? Let's put the cards on the table: the administration plans to move Gonzales to Supreme Court in 2006, and they are counting on spineless democrats who don't dare offend Hispanics to go along with it.

What are the ideas that Simon wants to attract voters with? Where does he stand on issues such as Iraq and the Gonzales torture memos? That's what Chris needs to talk about on DU.

[EFerrari]

14. Found this blog entry w/ a list of NDN donors

http://mars.typepad.com/no_retreat_no_surrender/2004/11/simon_says_brin.htmlNovember 22, 2004
Simon Says: Bring Back Democrats' High-Dollar Addiction

Simon Rosenberg is a reader of this blog from what I see in my referal logs (Hi Simon and Maria) he is also a potential etablishment candidate for the DNC in outsider's clothing. And while speaking at a conference last week in DC, he made an interesting point that may reveal something about the direction he would take the Democratic Party. (Yes, Ezra there is more)

He expressed a disdain for all of the fundraising emails sent by the Kerry campaign, and scoffed at the idea of raising money online -- favoring, apparently, a more esoteric relationship between campaigns and their grassroots supporters. While admirable, it ignores the fact that over 2/3rds of all Kerry's funds came from such contributions. This is because 90% of the contributions to the NDN came from contributions of $1,000 or more.

Given his reputation as a prodigious high-dollar fundraiser, his position makes sense. He seems to believe that the millions of us who have found a way to wield real political power with our $50 contributions belong back on the sidelines while fundraisers like Rosenberg bring in the "serious" dollars.

For me, there is no comparison between Howard Dean and Simon Rosenberg. The fact is that Howard Dean's presidential campaign created a new fundraising model -- one that carried over into John Kerry's campaign and to the progressive cause as a whole. Over 75% of Kerry's money came from small donors -- while Dean was in the race over 90% of his record-breaking totals were in contributions of $200 or less.

For the first time in modern history, we have the potential to build a party free from the special interest strangehold that has corrupted our government and alienated people from the political process.

During this election cycle ordinary people became the biggest special interest. The next leader of our party needs to expand that base and solidify that support.

Howard Dean led the way and made the new model work. But Simon says he wants to take us back to the bad old days.

Do you want to beholden to the small dollar donors or to these companies that gave Simon Rosenberg and the NDN more than $10,000 each: Instead he prefers to bring these companies that all gave the NDN more than $10,000: Augusta Capital, Roche, Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, Aetna, Pacificare Health Systems, Intuit, Goldman Sachs, Visa International, Natl Assn of Homebuilders, Biogen, Charles Schwab, BellSouth, Boeing, Prudentila Financial, Natl Assn of Realtors, General Electric, Microsoft, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Mass Mutual Life, Nortel, Amgen, Travellers Indemnity, Anheuser Busch, Bristol Meyers Squibb, American Insurance Association, Kleiner Perkins, United Airlines, Time Warner, Eli Lilly, United Parcel Service, American Bankers Assn, Genesoft, Dow Chemical, Colgate Palmolive, Ernst & Young, Northrup Grumman, Sempra Energy, and Price Waterhouse (from Open Secrets and commenter - jfrjfrjfr)

[Eloriel]

26. You like what you've seen of Chirs, but

promptly forget what ELSE you said about him: he is unlikely to EVER fully "get it" about what it means to be facing a draft for your sons and DAUGHTERS (now), nephews and nieces, sisters and brothers.

I don't happen to share your opinion in the first place, but I certainly don't understand why you make a very astute observation (an observation with MUCH more wide-ranging import than just the draft, I might point out), and then immediately turn your back on it. :shrug:

[H2O Man]

28. It's simple.

People in Chris Heinz's position will never know the reality of what a draft represents for the middle- and lower-income families in America. But DU may offer an avenue where some of us can communicate this to him. Maybe it will work; maybe not. But I would like to at least try.

At the very least, Chris might come to some understanding of why people like me would not consider Simon Rosenburg as anyone that I could support for any leadership position. Not considering someone for a leadership position does not mean that he is somehow an enemy. And even if he were an opponent (as opposed to an enemy), it would not be reason to not communicate.

[sherilocks]

15. Just for the record

corrected definition of Zionism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

On Rosenberg's religion:

Jewish name, perhaps (none / 0)

But he's not a Jew. He jokes that his family was the only "Rosenbergs" with a Christmas tree.
That said, I don't think it matters.

by kos on Mon Dec 6th, 2004 at 08:32:08 PST
< Parent >

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/6/112326/490

According to Kos, Rosenberg is not Jewish

Fact: Rosenberg was a major financial contributor to the start-up of David Brock's Media Matters.

For the record: I support Dr. Dean for DNC chair, but I hate misinformation.

[H2O Man]

19. Intersting information.

Thank you for posting it. I'm not concerned if a person is Jewish; it isn't an issue to me, except that I think that the USA still has an issue with anti-Jewish disease. I note that some republicans wanted to promote the business that Kerry had Jewish ancestors, rather than Irish ancestors. This was an appeal to one of the ugliest of the American passions. (The H2O blog has information on the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has some pretty scarey information on the hate groups that target Jewish people.)

Also, I believe that Israel is one of our best friends. I'm pro-Israel. However, that does not mean that I support their current leaders, any more than I support the current USA or British leaders.

My concerns with Simon Rosenburg are based entirely on his political and social beliefs. I do not view his as an enemy or a target for distain. I do believe that if there are any democrats that support the Bush invasion into Iraq, they should lead by example, and put on a uniform, pick up a gun, and go on over and show us that they really support the president.

[EFerrari]

22. As do I, which is why I asked the question.

And Zionism certainly has come a long way in it's "entitlement" and so am not clear on what is being "corrected" here.

Apart from that, the Open Secrets list of the NDN contributors, I see Big Pharma, defense contractors and other Beltway interests. Hmmm.

[H2O Man]

23. I find the

list of contributors to be unappealing. I like the idea of challenging the system by the grass-roots/internet method, which I suspect appeals to most DUers.

Also, I read through the posts connected to yours that I'm responding to; I don't see any mention of "corrected" in reference to your posts. Thus, I am curious what you are saying ("...and so am not clear on what is being 'corrected' here.")

Another poster had corrected something I said in reference to Dean's opposition to the Iraq war. I had erred, as I occassionally do. But I do not see any other refence to anything/anyone but me being "corrected."

[EFerrari]

24. Sorry. Maybe I was misreading. n/t

[H2O Man]

25. No problem.

The only person that has made a mistake on this thread was me. And it wasn't a significant one.

In regard to the issue of Simon Rosenburg, and any question if he is Jewish etc, these are things we should always put on the table and discuss openly. There are, sad to say, a number of people who are very "anti-Jewish" and "anti-Israel." And that's a shame. There are people who may oppose someone for their name, their heritage, etc. And so I always am happy to clarify why I am for or against a person in politics. So I didn't think you were pointing a finger at me .... and I wasn't pointing one towards you .... I thought you brought up an important topic, and I enjoyed discussing it.

With that out of the way, let's get back to Iraq. I think that's an area we can agree on. I believe that opposing the invasion is important. I believe that the administration has the potential to expand the war into Iran or Syria. I think that in 2000, under Clinton, the United States had a number of "moderate" Arab allies. Now we have virtually none except the Saudi royal family. This fact puts Israel at far higher risk of violence than any single other issue I can think of.

The Bush administration has many Neocons who are intent on "expanding" Israel. This may seem far-fetched, but there is plenty of evidence that it is not merely in the imagination of some paranoid Islamic clerics. It is important that the democratic party not support the neocon dream of a "greater Israel."

[sherilocks]

27. I was referring to your description of Zionism

I realize that this may have been a question, but I did not want to let the misrepresentation of the definition of the word "Zionism" stand unchallenged.

You said:

"Someone intimated to me that Rosenburg is a Zionist. That is, someone who believes the state of Isreal is above internatinal law. In your opinion, is there any truth to this?"

And so I responded with a definition of the word. If you dispute the definition that I gave, at least others will get a chance to view the meaning of the word from another source.

As far a corporate contributions go, until they are gone, eliminated from the playing field, I regard them as a necessary evil. More important to me is how much an individual Democrat sells him/herself out for that corporate contribution.

[EFerrari]

33. Fair enough. n/t

[KittyWampus]

16. Dean Was Absolutely NOT Opposed To Iraq Invasion From Day One

I am totally sick and tired of people perpertuating MYTHS about Dean.

Doesn't matter how much factual information is presented- Dean supporters simply ignore it.

And the only reason I say MYTH as opposed to LIE is because I respect the Opening Poster.

I do not have a dog in the DNC fight. But I am not going to sit mutely while DU'ers say things that aren't true about Dean.

Dean is/was NOT an outsider.
Dean is/was NOT targeted by the Media anymore than other Democrats.
Dean is/was NOT Populist when it comes to Economics.
Dean is/was NOT against the Iraq Invasion from Day One.

So please stop repeating something that simply isn't true.

If you want Dean for DNC chair then be honest and stick to the facts.

[H2O Man]

17. If I erred on the

statement on his opposition to Iraq -- and I'll take your word, because I only know he opposed it from when I became aware of him -- then it is important to know. It is more important to know that he was in opposition to it relatively early.

I haven't seen people refer to him as an outsider or an economic populist. I believe that the fact that he is neither to be a strength.

The media attention that Dean got during the primaries covered a very wide spectrum. Much of it was good; much was fair; and some clearly was used to discredit him. That may be more because of the gutter nature of the mainstream media.

I appreciate your comments. I also like that you used the word "myth" as opposed to "lie." (smile) I will be glad to admit that I err from time to time. Dean was not among the candidates that I favored for the democratic candidate. Yet my respect for him has always been high; and I think he represents the best choice for DNC Chair.

[KittyWampus]

18. I Edited My Post To Eliminate References To Media. Anyhow,

IMO, the best way to talk up Dean is to recognize the way he founded DFA to support local candidates in EVERY state.

He is doing something actively to reinvigorate both our Party AND the country.

:)

I can see some upside to Dean being Chair and some down side.

[H2O Man]

20. Certainly, none of us

are going to agree with Howard Dean or anyone else on everything. Any time two people think alike on everything, it is clear that only one of them is thinking.

I think there are at least 100 important issues facing our country today. I do not believe that a single one can be dealt with in the correct manner until we get out of Iraq. I believe that the anti-war movement has the potential of united large segments of America.

[Orangepeel]

29. he was on record as against it by the time congress was voting on it

I agree that he wasn't an outsider. although he never lived in washington, he was head of the governors' association and democratic governors' association, which is inside politics even if not the beltway. He sure alienated a lot of insiders during his campaign, however, so I'd say he was an "outsider" now.

I agree that they were all targeted by the media, athough I do think that Dean made news -- for better and worse -- more than the others in the early part of the campaign. That's because his campaign was good at making news -- for better and worse -- and because he was perceived as the frontrunner for a while. While he was perceived as the frontrunner, of course he got the most press.

Is he a a populist when it comes to economics? I'd agree that he isn't, although it isn't quite as cut and dried as that. Universal health coverage is relatively "populist" (although not as much so as single-payer coverage), and he does want to get rid of policies that reward outsourcing. But, he's never made any secret about being a deficit hawk. That was a cornerstone of his campaign.

He was against the invasion when it counted the most -- he was on record as saying that he would vote against the resolution to give bush authority to invade while it was being voted on. I sometimes read posts saying that publicly saying you'd vote against something is not the same things as actually having to vote, but I think that's bullshit. If someone is going to use a vote against you in a campaign, a public statement before the vote can be used just as well and therefore wouldn't give any political cover. The TRUTH is that Dean did come out strongly against the invasion when the polls still indicated that a majority of Democrats were for it. It was a smart political strategy because it differentiated him from a crowded pack, but he still deserves some political courage points for it, IMO (not to mention some credit for being RIGHT).

[H2O Man]

30. Thank you.

If he is on record as saying he would vote against granting the president authority to invade, that is early enough for me.

Is there any evidence that he had ever been in favor of the invasion of Iraq?

[paulk]

31. Dean supported invasion under certain circumstances

despite the revisionist history of the anti-war Dean supporters, Dean's actual positions at the time differed very little from the other Democratic candidates.

from a Thomas Oliphant column -



"Oliphant Said Bush Could Have Just as Easily Gone to War with Biden-Lugar. "Here is what actually happened. Bush proposed a pure, blank-check resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq in September 2002. Many in Congress, Gephardt included, opposed it. Negotiations ensued, alternatives were proposed, and a month later many Democrats and nearly all Republicans agreed with Bush on a second resolution which passed overwhelmingly. One of those alternatives - offered by the top men on the Senate Foreign Relations, Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware and Republican Dick Lugar of Indiana - authorized the use of force after a new UN resolution requiring Iraqi disarmament and compliance with past resolution; if UN diplomacy was exhausted it authorized unilateral action if the president declared Iraq a threat. This alternative was not only supported by Howard Dean, it was supported by Senator John Kerry, whom Dean also attacks for being Bush's war buddy….. The differences between the two were not huge, and each authorized war, including unilateral war. After the vote, Dean reiterated his Biden-Lugar position but did not denounce the enacted resolution until later. He also said Bush should be taken at his word that Iraq constituted a threat. As a result of Congress's resolution, the Bush administration went to New York and secured unanimous Security Council passage of a new resolution demanding new inspections and threatening serious consequences for disobedience. At that point the world was essentially united and so was the United States. Against that background, Bush could have gone to war just as easily under Biden-Lugar as under the actual congressional resolution. It is no more Gephardt's fault than it is Dean's fault that Bush decided to invade the country on March 20 with only Britain as a serious ally and without a clear plan for the aftermath. The ad's implication to the contrary is false." "

[H2O Man]

32. Interesting article

Thanks for posting it. I think that, despite the author's feeling otherwise, it makes an important distinction on what Dean's position was .... "if UN diplomacy was exhausted..." Clearly, the UN's efforts were not exhausted. In fact, the UN inspections were making a convincing case that Iraq did not have WMDs. Thus, Bush/Cheney had to speed up their invasion, before the world knew that the WMD "threat" was a farce.

I do not think that it is likely that an ex-governor is going to have the same access to information that senators and congressmen had. I think that the Dean people who note he was anti-war are very accurate. I do not believe that they have "revised" anything, certainly not anything that I have seen.

[Orangepeel]

36. certain circumstances, like it really WAS an imminent threat?

well, yeah.

At the time of the vote, I thought that Dean's position was very sensible and I still do. The administration had not shown that they were an imminent threat and had to do more to get allies on board.

Dean is not a pacifist and it is true that he did play up the anti-invasion thing as the campaign progressed. It was a point of differentiation from the candidates in the lead and gave him much needed press. I understand why this was infuriating to supporters of other candidates who were stronger in their opposition and didn't get a whole lot of credit for it.

But revising history to suggest that Dean was not on record as against the Iraq resolution is as inappropriate as revision history to suggest that he wouldn't have supported invasion under any circumstances.

[H2O Man]

37. The other candidates

who were opposed to the war were never serious contenders for the nomination. They are good and decent people, but should not be mistaken for having had any chance of being nominated.

I've never seen anyone claim Dean is a pacifist. It seems that a few people who are clearly not pro-Dean are pointing out he is not a pacifist, but no pro-Dean people are pushing it. I think orangepeel68 has been very clear about this.

It's actually an advantage that Dean is not a pacifist. We don't want a person who will fight for no reason, or a person who will not fight for any reason. We want a person who can reason: from everything I have seen, Dean used good reasoning to come to his position.

I don't know much about any of the other candidates for DNC Chair. I do know that Simon Rosenburg is a supporter of the Bush invasion in Iraq. And I know that is reason enough for me to say I would never recognize him as representing my interests. Should he become DNC Chair, I will not contribute any money to them. It'll be that much more to MoveOn, etc.

[welshTerrier2]

34. DEAN did NOT OPPOSE the invasion of IRAQ !!!!!!

enough already ... let's get the usual assaults out of the way ... i am not anti-Dean ... in fact, i'm supporting him for DNC Chair ... but please stop saying he opposed the invasion "when it counted the most" ... if that's what you believe, please provide some documentation contrary to the quote from Dr. Dean provided below ...

here is Dr. Dean's position one month before the invasion ... don't twist it ... don't dance around it ... don't attack me for hating Dr. Dean or being a rigid, anti-war ideologue ... just look at exactly what he said ... and let's be clear ... Dr. Dean did not say the U.S. did not have the right to invade ... he did not say we could only invade if there was proof of WMD ... he did not say the U.N. had to approve the invasion or that we had to have a real international coalition ... he did not say that the standard, as it has always been, was one of imminent threat ... at least not in this statement ...

here was Dr. Dean's statement that clearly supports the invasion if only one specific test failed to be met ... and was Dr. Dean's test? ... Saddam had to allow inspectors back in within 60 days:

February 19, 2003 DEAN -- Unilateral Action Is...Unavoidable Choice
Salon's Jake Tapper summarizes Dean's oft-repeated position on attacking Iraq: "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." (source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/09/030907-kucinich.htm)

if you'd prefer, i'll try to provide additional links to his exact words ... the U.S. invaded Iraq exactly one month after Dr. Dean made this statement ... this is NOT a statement made by someone who refused to go along with bush's invasion ... my point is not that Dr. Dean didn't have all sorts of criticisms of bush's policy in Iraq; he did ... and I don't believe that if Dr. Dean had been President at the time he would have invaded ... but the bottom line is, that one month prior to the invasion, Dr. Dean set a very low standard, an improper standard, in support of bush's invasion ...

other sources: http://www.democrats.org/blog/comment/00010098.html

JANUARY 31, 2003 - LA TIMES

Ron Brownstein writes that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

FEBRUARY 10, 2003 - NY TIMES

"Action with the U.N. is where we should be aiming at right now. We should be going back and set a timeline with the U.N. for absolute disarmament. I've chosen 60 days. And then there would be military action. Look, Saddam has to be disarmed. Everybody has to understand that."

FEBRUARY 20, 2003 - SALON.COM

Jake Tapper writes, " is — 'as I've said about eight times today,' says, annoyed — that 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.

added on edit:

oh, and one more thing ... with all the evidence of bush's failed military approach, with the increasing devastation in Iraq and the utter hopelessness of the Iraqi people, Dr. Dean, and I believe no candidate for DNC Chair, has called for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq either immediately or in the very near term ... if I'm wrong about this, please provide some details ... i'd be very interested to see them ...

[Orangepeel]

35. Dean did not oppose an invasion under any circumstances

Anybody who tries to paint him as a pacifist is mistaken. He was not opposed to invasion, if indeed, Iraq was shown to be an imminent threat. His point was that the administration wouldn't clearly say "Here's the problem. Here's the threat. Here's the conditions under which we will go in."

I said, and I stand by my statement, that Dean was on record as opposing the resolution authorizing invasion into Iraq when it was voted upon in the house and Senate.

Here is a link to Dean's own words -- from September of 2002 before the vote was taken -- many of which are cited in your sources above:

(note that the transcript gives the text of a Kucinich interviewed conducted immediately afterward which is much stronger in tone. I have never, ever said that Dean was the most anti-war candidate or even a strong anti-war candidate. But, it is a fact, that he was on record as opposing the resolution before it was voted upon).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/main523726.shtml

(CBS) BOB SCHIEFFER... You have said at this point that the president has not yet made the case for war, and that nothing so far has justified a unilateral strike into Iraq.

But Iraq now says, over the weekend, that it will not accept tougher rules for inspection. Doesn't that make the case now for the administration?

GOV. HOWARD DEAN, D-VT: Not quite yet. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. The question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not yet made the case for that.

I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we've had over the weekend; that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it's got to be gone about in a very different way. It really is important to involve our allies, to bring other people into the coalition, to get a decent resolution out of the U.N. Security Council.

And if Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, we are clearly going to have to do something about it. But I'm not convinced yet and the president has not yet made the case, nor has he ever said, this is an immediate threat.

In fact, the only intelligence that has been put out there is the British intelligence report, which says he is a threat but not an immediate one.


He has not, to my knowledge, called for a withdrawal of troops. In fact, during the campaign, he was clear that his opinion was that we went in and destroyed a country and took out its government and now we had an obligation to make sure it got fixed. Maybe he's changed his mind as the situation has gotten worse, maybe he wants to withdraw after the elections. I don't know, but I haven't heard him say so.

[H2O Man]

38. Does anyone think

that Simon Rosenburg's position on Iraq is superior to Dean's? That would seem to be the most important thing at this point.

[paulk]

43. I became interested in Mr. Rosenberg

a few weeks before Chris Heinz's thread...

There's really not much out there regarding Rosenberg and Iraq. There are the quotes from the articles you note in your original post - they're both provided without any context, however, and I would rather get it from the source. The only thing I've been able to find is an AAR interview with Randi Rhodes where Rosenberg clearly says that if he had been in Congress he would have voted for the war - but he believes that Bush's handling of the aftermath has been disastrous. From this, I don't believe it's accurate to say that Rosenberg continues to support the war. When he talks about this stuff, though, he mostly approaches it from the POV of what the party should do, or should have done. He rarely seems to expound on his own beliefs.

I don't have the url for this interview, though I do know where it is in the archives, but since advanced search isn't working I can't get to it. I've got it on my desktop, I could e-mail to you if you're interested.

To be honest, I've never seen Dean's position on Iraq as very different from the mainstream Democratic position. I feel that debating the difference between the IWR and the Biden/Lugar amendment falls somewhere into the realm of "splitting hairs".

I don't think the choice between Dean and Rosenberg is an "us vs them" proposition. Everything I've read leads me to believe that the two are very close when it comes to what they feel the party needs. Although Rosenberg's NDN didn't endorse Dean (they didn't endorse anyone), Rosenberg was one of Dean's strongest supporters among the "consultant" ranks.

If Dean gets the job I wouldn't be surprised to see him hire Rosenberg in some capacity, and vice-versa.

[H2O Man]

45. The choice between Dean

and Rosenberg may not be an "us" vs "them" issue. The difference between Rosenberg and people in the middle and lower income classes certainly is an "us" versus "them" thing. If Simon really believes that the USA should be in Iraq, then he should simply suspend his run for DNC Chair, and put on that National Guard uniform, and show us how strongly he believes in this policy. If he doesn't, then the truth is that he really is no different than the president he supports: a cowardly dog that wants other people to fight and die in a war he approves of, but doesn't have the balls to fight.

I appreciate that others can and do feel differently. I do not think that many people who do not inhabit the upper economic classes-- who simply never bear the military burden in the wars that fatten their bank accounts -- will find Simon attractive. But I do appreciate that you are interested in discussing the issues involved. I can respect that much more than a person who drops in to endorse him, but refuses to discuss the issue of his position on Iraq.

[welshTerrier2]

39. Dr. Dean's standard for invasion

in your earlier post you used the phrase: "The TRUTH is that Dean did come out strongly against the invasion" ... he may have "come out strongly" but he didn't remain strong in his opposition to the invasion ...

in this last post, you correctly cited Dean's 9/30/02 statement that no imminent threat had been demonstrated to that point ...
The question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not yet made the case for that. ... To be clear, I was one of the earliest Dean supporters on DU ... I considered the life and death issues associated with abuse of American military power to be among the very highest priorities we faced ... i still do ...

but what exactly caused Dr. Dean to change his standard for invasion by the time he made his Feb. 03 statement? now the standard was no longer "imminent threat" but Saddam's willingness to allow inspectors back in ... Dean said that the "imminent threat" test had not been met ... here was his 2/25/03 statement: "If he were , I would advocate unilateral action."

i freely acknowledge your very credible point that Dean opposed the IWR and the invasion prior to the IWR vote ... but i'm afraid to say Dr. Dean flip flopped his position prior to the invasion ... I repeat, this is not an attack on Dr. Dean ... but I think it's important to be painfully clear on his record ...

my driving issue is the insane use and abuse of the American military and I look very hard for leadership that "gets it" ... Dr. Dean's pre-invasion standard for war was deficient and I was truly saddened to have him take the position he did ...

one last point ... i think it is tragic that the Democratic Party, Dr. Dean, and all the other DNC Chair candidates, as well as many elected Democrats, continue to push for policies in Iraq that don't make any sense ... if it made sense to some to call for "internationalizing" the military presence because Kerry might have been able to achieve such a thing, i disagree but understand that the position is at least valid ... perhaps Kerry could have been successful ... but to continue to argue that position now is crazy ... bush couldn't internationalize anything ... he has no credibility on Iraq ... and I don't see him making the effort anytime soon ... so the Democrats' policy is nonsense ... it's a strategy that needs a rethink ... it's time to get the hell out either immediately or on a very accelerated timetable ...

do we have an obligation to help Iraq? you bet we do ... but i think any reasonable person should understand by now that "helping" militarily is making things much worse ... not better ...

[H2O Man]

41. I'm curious ....

if you think that Dean's stance on American involvement is the same as Rosenburg's? Better? Worse? Any difference?

[welshTerrier2]

42. are you more worried about defending Dean or the U.S. Iraq policy?

well, either way, i think you'll like this ... I've written extensively about why Rosenberg should not be the next Chair ... in fact, I went further than that amidst rumors that a deal was cut with Dean that Dean would be the Chair and Rosenberg the Executive Director ... that would totally suck ...

Rosenberg statement that the "war in Iraq is good" was defended by some on two counts:
1. the Chair is not involved with policy and
2. he had to support the Party's (and Kerry's) position.

Fine ... let's concede both of these points ... i disagree but let's just concede them ...

But now, right in the middle of the campaign for chair, right at a time when the "war" has reached it's greatest damage and destruction to the people of Iraq, and right at a time that our Party is in conflict because the majority do not feel they have real access to power, Mr. Rosenberg demonstrated an incredibly, insensitive lack of judgment ... and what did he say? a DU'er reported (can't verify this) that on AAR over the weekend, Mr. Rosenberg offered his opinion that bush's invasion of Iraq were "well intentioned" ... sorry, that just doesn't reflect the kind of judgment needed to bring the Party together ...

so no, i do NOT think Rosenberg's position is acceptable in any way ... As others in this thread have correctly pointed out, Dean has expressed all sorts of criticisms of bush and all sorts of objections to Iraq ... as i stated earlier, I was a very early supporter of Dean's Presidential campaign ... but I felt like he sold me down the river with his "60 days and invade" statement in March of 2003 ... i'm a forgiving sort and believe that Dean would like to get us out of there ... I don't know what else I can do to highlight that i think he's dead wrong but I continue to support him ... the Party needs a reformer and I don't see any of the others with credibility on the issue ... that's why i'm supporting Dean ...

I sometimes worry that DFA folks support Dean no matter what he says and that he's more important than the big issues of the day ... he's not ... it will be a very happy day when Dr. Dean and all the others finally awaken to the only right thing to do in Iraq ... and that's to leave ... yeah, there a big difference between Dean and Rosenberg ... but on Iraq, Dean is dead wrong ... let's work to change that ...

[H2O Man]

44. I'm not "worried" about Dean.

I think that you have mistaken me for a long-term Dean supporter. I am not. However, I find him an attractive candidate for DNC Chair. I have read what you have posted regarding Dean on Iraq, but I do not agree with your interpretation of the evidence that you present.

However, I admire that you have strong opinions, and that you feel strongly enough about issues to express them openly.

I am concerned about US policy in Iraq. I recognize that Bush/Cheney lack the moral capacity to do the right thing in Iraq. I realize that our country has caused the death of thousands of innocent people in that country, and wounded thousands more. I realize that we are making a blood sacrifice of our own youth, for the economic benefit of people I know to be evil. I recognize that unless we make drastic changes in our domestic and foreign policy, things will continue to spiral out of control, and more people will suffer and die.

Of the candidates who are currently running for DNC Chair, I believe that Dean represents the best choice for organizing around the ideas that can lead to the most immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. You appear to believe otherwise. I respect your right to feel otherwise. But I disagree with you, respectfully.

[welshTerrier2]

46. i respect where you're coming from

i appreciate both your tone and your insights and did misconstrue you as being a long-term Dean supporter and I offer my apologies for misunderstanding you ...

i'm delighted to hear your views on Iraq ... they seem to be very similar to my own ...

now, a couple of points ...

first, it would be helpful if you elaborate on the point that you don't agree with my interpretation of the evidence I presented about Dr. Dean's position ... my central piece of information was that Dr. Dean called for invasion of Iraq if Saddam did not allow the inspectors back in within 60 days ... question 1 is: do you agree that's the essence of the statement Dr. Dean made in March of 2003 (a month prior to the invasion) ?? no other conditions were set as a prerequisite for invasion ... i appreciate that Dr. Dean opposed the IWR (I won't get into Biden-Lugar) and that he INITIALLY seemed opposed to the invasion ... but what is your assessment of the standard for invasion that Dr. Dean's March statement embodies?

second, allow me to respectfully correct a point you made ... you wrote:
I believe that Dean represents the best choice for organizing around the ideas that can lead to the most immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. You appear to believe otherwise.

the truth is i am supporting Dr. Dean for DNC Chair ... I see him as the only chance we have for real reform ... I see him as the only candidate running with the stature to harness the energies of the grassroots (at this time) ... and I even believe that in his heart he knows the "war" is well beyond hope ... there will be no military solution in Iraq ... i hope and pray that Dr. Dean exercises some leadership on this issue and helps put an end to this national nightmare by speaking out against it ... i continue to be disappointed with almost all Democrats for their unwillingness to acknowledge that there cannot be a positive outcome from bush's insane "war" ... let's get this thing turned around NOW ...

[H2O Man]

47. I guess we are even ......

as you thought I was a long-time Dean supporter, and I thought you were not supporting him for DNC Chair. I think that this is a good example of how easy it can be to misunderstand another person on a forum like DU .... and an even better example of how by being polite and keeping an open mind, people can correct small errors before they grow to become larger grudges.

I think that by saying that Saddam needed to allow the UN access, and that he needed to cooperate, or face an invasion, Dean was doing a good balancing job. The truth is, there were very serious charges. Now, we know the charges were lies .... and considering the yellow cake forgeries, which are at the heart of the Plame controversy, we know the administration was willing -- no! prepared -- to go to any extent to justify a war.

Now, we also know Saddam was a terrible human being. And we know that issues of WMD are very real. It is an important issue to discuss in global terms. So I think it was necessary for Saddam to allow UN inspectors access, and indeed cooperation .... and there is good reason to believe there had to be a threat of force to get that access and cooperation. So I have no problem with Dean saying what he did.

Saddam allowed access, and there is clear evidence that Iraq was cooperating with weapons inspections. There is clear evidence that those inspections were showing that there were no WMDs. There is clear evidnce that the most desperate measure of the VP, to plant fake evidence of the Niger yellow cake, was going to be exposed by three separate investigations as bogus. And there is no doubt whatsoever that the UN inspection was going to conclude relatively soon that there were no WMDs, and the yellow cake documents were frauds.

And that is why the administration hurried to invade. If they waited 90 days more, for the UN inspections that Dean called for to be completed, there could be no justification for the invasion.

[EFerrari]

40. I'm not a deaniac although appreciate how he riled up our people

And have to disagree on two points. Dean was targeted by the media. In context, the scream is not.

He was also targeted by the DLC, although that might be the wrong word because a contest is a contest. He was not their choice. So, in that sense, he is an "outsider". Maybe my issue is, "outside" of what? Is he priviliged? Looks like it. Is he a party darling? Doesn't look like it from here.

[H2O Man]

48. Good points.

I think it is important to use words correctly. You do us a service by focusing on how people that we might typically associate with the DNC often twist the meaning of words, and then even sincere democrats often parrot those incorrect terms.

Let's use the word "centrist" as an example. The word has but two meanings: {1} One with moderate views; and {2} A person from a central party or organization.

Those advocating for Simon Rosenberg refer to him as a "centrist." This implies that Brother Simon is pretty close to all of us in his views. Why, you would almost think that Simon was at the axis of the democratic party, able to help us all move forward.

But that's just a "spin." It's not true. Let's just look at his views on Iraq. Simon supports President Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq. Now we can post questions all day on DU, asking Simon's supporters for clarification: does Simon still share the president's stated belief that Iraq was posed to attack the USA with WMDs? Does Simon have visions of mushroom clouds? Or does he share the Cheney vision of oil profits from Iraq? We can ask, but they won't answer. So thet aren't so central as to be in touch with us.

Look at the national polls on Iraq. Is Simon a centrist? No way.

Look at the economic class of the kids fighting and dying every day in Iraq. Is Simon a centrist? Nope.

Simon is on the fringe. He's out of touch on the issue of Iraq. He has more in common with George Bush than with the grass roots democrats on Iraq. He has more in common with Dick Cheney than with any soldier who died in Iraq. And we need to keep that in mind when we talk about the democratic party.