Latest DEAN Shocker: Dean the Unilateralist
Well, well. It seems Dr. Dean thinks supporting "unilateral' action is just fine after all. Another Dean contradiction. Gee, imagine that.
Howard Dean wrote this Letter to then President Clinton to not just support unilateral action in Bosnia, but ASK for it. Here is my favorite quote:
Well now doesn't that sound familiar. Try and win UN approval, and then do what has to be done if the passive international organization fails. Why is this acceptable for Clinton and Dean...but not for Bush?
Here is the link to the article:
Howard Dean wrote this Letter to then President Clinton to not just support unilateral action in Bosnia, but ASK for it. Here is my favorite quote:
Quote:
think your policy up to this date has been absolutely correct. We must give, and have given, this policy with our allies and with the United Nations every opportunity to work. It is evident, however, that the cost in human lives in allowing this policy to continue is too great. In addition, and perhaps more importantly for the United States, we are now in a position of ignoring, as many did in the 1940s, one of the worst crimes committed in history. If we ignore these behaviors, no matter where they occur, our moral fiber as a people becomes weakened. As the Catholic Church and others lost credibility during the Holocaust for not speaking out, so will the United States lose credibility and our people lose confidence in themselves as moral beings if the United States does not take action.
think your policy up to this date has been absolutely correct. We must give, and have given, this policy with our allies and with the United Nations every opportunity to work. It is evident, however, that the cost in human lives in allowing this policy to continue is too great. In addition, and perhaps more importantly for the United States, we are now in a position of ignoring, as many did in the 1940s, one of the worst crimes committed in history. If we ignore these behaviors, no matter where they occur, our moral fiber as a people becomes weakened. As the Catholic Church and others lost credibility during the Holocaust for not speaking out, so will the United States lose credibility and our people lose confidence in themselves as moral beings if the United States does not take action.
Well now doesn't that sound familiar. Try and win UN approval, and then do what has to be done if the passive international organization fails. Why is this acceptable for Clinton and Dean...but not for Bush?
Here is the link to the article:
Comments
Dean's problem with unilateral action in Iraq was that Iraq wasn't worth the friction with our allies that was caused, and that Iraq was a waste of military resources that would have been better spent securing Afghanistan and going after the rest of Al Qaeda.
The only "hypocrisy" here is in the kind of mind that filters reality down to the most convenient black-and-white, nuance-free simplicities for the sake of having something to sputter angrily about.
Originally posted by BR
Good point SDW. Dean is clearly a hypocrite here.
Only a good point if you're foolish enough to go by SDW's elementary-school level analysis of current events.
Oh wait... you mean Clinton didn't get U.N. approval?!?
Dean II
Clinton eventually won approval from NATO but not the United Nations for a limited bombing campaign that led to peace talks and a NATO peacekeeping force at the end of 1995. About 3,000 U.S. troops are in Bosnia today.
Oh.. surely the U.N. wouldn't tolerate genocide. Surely the U.N. wouldn't tolerate or ignore "as many did in the 1940s, one of the worst crimes committed in history." (Howard Dean)
Unilateral on Bosnia, unilateral on the WTO, heck Kerry and others are even claiming there was an Iraq war resolution he did back that required Bush to simply notify Congress before taking.
Sounds like a case of Dean double-talk again.
Nick
Originally posted by shetline
Only a good point if you're foolish enough to go by SDW's elementary-school level analysis of current events.
And there you have it. Liberals love to to turn to insults when presented with a black and white case. Dean supported unilateral action in Bosnia and not in Iraq. End of story. There were many more reasons to invade Iraq than there were in Bosnia, including the humanitarian situation.
And furthermore, the action in Iraq was not unilateral in any sense. We went to the UN time and time again, and the coaliton of participating nations is rather large. We have led the coalition, done most of the work and taken most of the risk. That doesn't make it unilateral.
Either way, Dean is a hypocrite here. Though I would LOVE to see him run against Bush, I am starting to think he is going to self destruct. The War is his central issue, and this makes him look like a idiot.
Originally posted by SDW2001
And there you have it. Liberals love to to turn to insults when presented with a black and white case. Dean supported unilateral action in Bosnia and not in Iraq. End of story.
It's only the "end of story" if you believe that Dean has taken a stand that unilateral action is always wrong. He has taken no such stand. You're attempting to manufacture hypocrisy out of thin air. The case is only as black and white as a limited ability to process important details makes it.
Originally posted by SDW2001
There were many more reasons to invade Iraq than there were in Bosnia, including the humanitarian situation.
...and there were many more reasons not to.
You're not comparing like-with-like and you're ignoring the dozens of more and less subtle differences between the two situations, chief of which (and most blindingly obvious to anyone who's ever read a newspaper) are the global ramifications of invading an Arab / Muslim-majority state at a time of great crisis caused by terrorism, in order to score points.
Oh, and while I'm on a roll ad hom-wise, you're a twat.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
You're not comparing like-with-like and you're ignoring the dozens of more and less subtle differences between the two situations, chief of which (and most blindingly obvious to anyone who's ever read a newspaper) are the global ramifications of invading an Arab / Muslim-majority state at a time of great crisis caused by terrorism, in order to score points.
Oh, and while I'm on a roll ad hom-wise, you're a twat.
This is why every political thread in AO sucks.
People constantly make intelligent and solid arguments with one another, only to then resort to grade school insults by the end of their post and completely dumb down what would have otherwise been a worthwhile response.
Originally posted by SDW2001
And there you have it. Liberals love to to turn to insults when presented with a black and white case. Dean supported unilateral action in Bosnia and not in Iraq. End of story. There were many more reasons to invade Iraq than there were in Bosnia, including the humanitarian situation.
And furthermore, the action in Iraq was not unilateral in any sense. We went to the UN time and time again, and the coaliton of participating nations is rather large. We have led the coalition, done most of the work and taken most of the risk. That doesn't make it unilateral.
Either way, Dean is a hypocrite here. Though I would LOVE to see him run against Bush, I am starting to think he is going to self destruct. The War is his central issue, and this makes him look like a idiot.
You really think you've found something don't you?
Originally posted by rageous
This is why every political thread in AO sucks.
People constantly make intelligent and solid arguments with one another, only to then resort to grade school insults by the end of their post and completely dumb down what would have otherwise been a worthwhile response.
But he is a twat.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
...and there were many more reasons not to.
You're not comparing like-with-like and you're ignoring the dozens of more and less subtle differences between the two situations, chief of which (and most blindingly obvious to anyone who's ever read a newspaper) are the global ramifications of invading an Arab / Muslim-majority state at a time of great crisis caused by terrorism, in order to score points.
Oh, and while I'm on a roll ad hom-wise, you're a twat.
I won't respond to the attack...but I will say that your comment boils down to the classic liberal line:
"SDW thinks what he does because he is ignorant and shallow-minded"
That single line, that conservatives are simpletons--- is a neat little, often used trick. If only I was more informed, then perhaps I'd agree with you...correct? Yes, I believe that is what you were saying.
The fact is that Dean's opposition to the war in Iraq is based on, among other things, his supposed dislike of "unilateral" action. It is one of his main points of reason. And as far as Iraq and Bosnia being different, well of course they are. I never said they were the same, and I haven't heard anyone else say they are. The point is, there were a huge number of reasons to invade Iraq, which I and others have listed over and over and over again. In Bosnia, there were far fewer reasons, yet unilateral action was taken and supported by Dean. This is a discrpepancy that cannot be explained by anything other than the pursuit of political advantage and the desire to court a leftist base. If anything, Dean should have opposed the Bosnia conflict and NOT opposed the Iraq War, because in the case of Bosnia there was NO QUESTION that it was not a threat in any way to U.S. Security. While there may be debate over the nature of the threat Iraq posed, one can say with absolute certainty that Iraq was "more of a threat" than Bosnia.
Perhaps someone with your obvious intellect would like to explain how Dean could support one and not the other? And don't try the old "there are other implications in invading an Arab/Muslim country" tactic, because your argument cannot stand on that one fact alone.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
..
You're not comparing like-with-like and you're ignoring the dozens of more and less subtle differences between the two situations, chief of which (and most blindingly obvious to anyone who's ever read a newspaper) are the global ramifications of invading an Arab / Muslim-majority state at a time of great crisis caused by terrorism..
You keep huffing and puffing, but tiz all wind.
Dean's bit was "unilateral action is wrong" which may or may not be what his entire thought process on the matter is. it is what gets played on the news though, and it's the perception.
for those who bother to know enough about the canidate to know the entire back-story, this is a non factor. to those who are lightly following Dean and his campaign, this will appear to be flip flopping. (whether it is or not)
as for twat comments. grow up.
I completely agree that any person, political candidate or no, cannot make a complete assessment of their opinions on every subject. Entire books are devoted to explaining opinions and views; 30 second soundbites often only provide political ammunition to a person's enemies.
This applies both ways you kneebiters.
Originally posted by rageous
This is why every political thread in AO sucks.
People constantly make intelligent and solid arguments with one another, only to then resort to grade school insults by the end of their post and completely dumb down what would have otherwise been a worthwhile response.
I am in agreement with this. There is no reason for childish behavior from members of any viewpoint.
I trust that we will see change in this area.
Fellowship
Presuming that Iraq and Bosnia are the same isnt a reasonable approach. Why didnt we stop the Rawandan massacre? It probably boils down to a momentary pause. Why didnt Reagan and Bush senior go into Iraq when Saddam was gassing the Kurds? Again, a momentary pause when something that is now so apparently wrong didnt seem enough to call for action. Saddam was not gassing the Kurds last year, in fact, I think he was sufficiently unable to do that for a while now. Did he commit attrocities? Yes. Were they occuring when Bush Jr. called for war? Not to the immediacy that Bosnia or Rawanda or Iraq in the late 1980s. Immediacy calls for unilateral action because our international system is broken. Iraq was not an immediate threat to its own people. They are different situations.
Originally posted by shetline
It's only the "end of story" if you believe that Dean has taken a stand that unilateral action is always wrong. He has taken no such stand. You're attempting to manufacture hypocrisy out of thin air. The case is only as black and white as a limited ability to process important details makes it.
DING DING DING DING!
Originally posted by billybobsky
Iraq was not an immediate threat to its own people.
It's awfully nice for you to speak for an entire nation of people who'd counter your claim in a heartbeat as you sit comfortably from the safety of your computer typing on an Appleinsider message board.
Come on! You're more intelligent than that. Don't try and defend the statement. Either it was an honest mistake, came out differently than you intended, or your just dense. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not trying to argue one way or the other about Dean's statement and Iraq and Bosnia, but I find it offensive to say that Saddam's regime wasn't a threat to his own people simply because he wasn't gassing them the day we attacked.
That's like saying Hitler wasn't a threat to the Jews until he started slaughtering them. You can clearly see from hindsight that just because he wasn't killing them from the day he took office doesn't mean he wasn't a threat to them.
Regards!