portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

imperialism & war


More dirt on Howard Dean the prowar "antiwar" candidate. Another good example why you should never ever trust an American Politician. They are liars and war criminals all. This comment says it all: "the development of Dean the candidate has revealed that the man is not merely a liar, but a chameleon of uncommon ability." Sounds almost like...Bubba Clinton don't it?
August 27, 2003

The lying S.O.B.
by Justin Raimondo

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

Or, as the post-Vatican II generation would put it:

Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault!

I confess: I wanted to believe. I wanted to hope. I wanted to have faith in Howard Dean as the anti-war candidate. I even wrote a column about it, wherein I praised the former Vermont governor and sometime critic of the Iraq war. Good lord, I even compared him to Adlai Stevenson!

Boy oh boy, was I ever wrong! How wrong? Here is Dean giving Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post the real scoop:

"'I don't even consider myself a dove,' he told me and my colleague Ruth Marcus during a conversation before the rally... . It's true that he opposed the war in Iraq, he says, but he supported the 1991 Gulf War and the Bush campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan. More interesting, at a time when many politicians are shuddering at President Bush's ambitions to remake the Middle East - conservatives, because they are skeptical of such grand reshaping ambitions; liberals, because they see resources being diverted from social causes at home - Dean sounds if anything more committed than Condoleezza Rice to bringing democracy to Iraq.

"'Now that we're there, we're stuck,' he said. Bush took an 'enormous risk' that through war the United States could replace Saddam Hussein and the 'small danger' he presented to the United States with something better and safer. The gamble was 'foolish;' and 'wrong.' But whoever will be elected in 2004 has to live with it. 'We have no choice. It's a matter of national security. If we leave and we don't get a democracy in Iraq, the result is very significant danger to the United States.'"

Now that we've made the biggest mistake in our history, we have to pursue the same course until we've dragged ourselves, and everyone around us, down into perdition. Iraq was a "small danger" a few months ago, but now, magically, it is transformed - after Saddam's defeat - into "a very significant danger to the United States." And he can always lay the blame at Bush's doorstep. President Dean can always claim to have inherited the guerrilla war in Iraq, yet claim that now "we have no choice." It's the perfect alibi.

As Dean barnstorms the country and charms the left-wing of his party with his brand of pernicious guff, he is turning into a disaster for the anti-war movement, and an embarrassment to his supporters. If we're lucky, Dean may derail his own campaign with his careening instability long before he gets anywhere near the White House.

I should've been warned. A few days before this story came out, it was a sunny Saturday afternoon on San Francisco's Fillmore Street, when I spied a "Dean for President" table in front of the Royal Ground coffee shop. It was an irresistible urge that pulled me across the street, and led me into my first real live experience with the Dean Phenomenon in the person of a slightly yuppie-ish, thirty-something guy with a square, Dudley Do-Right-ish chin and a determined look in his eyes. He thrust a leaflet into my hand as I approached, and immediately started babbling about the glories of government-guaranteed universal health care.

Uh, gee, I thought, do I look that sick?

"Oh, don't bother with any of that," I said, smiling in what I hoped was a disarming fashion. "I could care less about Dean's domestic views, which I don't agree with, anyway. However, I do like his foreign policy stance, especially when it comes to Iraq."

The Dean Guy looked disappointed, yet he nodded anyway.

"But tell me," I said, checking out the literature on his table, "what's up with Dean saying we should go into Liberia, but not Iraq? Isn't that a bit of an inconsistency?"

The Dean Guy looked utterly flabbergasted: "Oh no," he exclaimed, clenching his jaw, "they're completely different."

"Yeah," I said, "one involves our alleged 'national interest,' and the other doesn't bother with that pretense."

"Liberia is a humanitarian intervention," he assured me, "Iraq was for the oil."

"So the U.S. must intervene everywhere - as long as it's a self-less act?"

"Yes, but what about World War II?" There was a triumphant finality in his voice, as if to say: Gotcha! "What would you have done then?"

"Stayed out of it. After all, what did we get out of it? Soviet-occupied Europe and half a century of Cold War."

"What are you" - the poor kid looked frightened, for a moment, as if he'd seen a ghostly apparition - "some kind of isolationist?"

"You got that one right."

"It's wrong," he said, shaking his head vigorously. Was that a rattling sound I heard? "Just wrong."

"Yeah, that's right: me and George Washington, we're both wrong. Not to mention Thomas Jefferson, the founder of your party."

"Look," he said, "if we had hours to debate this... "

Only a few minutes to a customer, but I'd already had enough. It was plain to see that hours - days, weeks, months - of debate would never disabuse this young zealot of the conceit that he and Howard Dean could reform the whole world, if only the voters were willing. If the U.S. federal government can guarantee "universal health care" to its citizens, why not wave a similar magic wand over the people of Iraq? Dean's all for it, as his remarks to the Post make all too clear:

"Bringing democracy to Iraq is not a two-year proposition. Having elections alone doesn't guarantee democracy. You've got to have institutions and the rule of law, and in a country that hasn't had that in 3,000 years, it's unlikely to suddenly develop by having elections and getting the heck out."

Dean, the alleged "anti-war" candidate, agrees with Condi Rice's concept of a "generational" project to bring "democracy" to Iraq, and joins Bill Kristol in questioning the depth and endurance of the President's commitment.

But if the war was a mistake, then the occcupation is not only wrong but also potentially disastrous for the U.S. To realize just how catastrophic, imagine President Dean doing what he told the Post he'd do:

"Dean would impose a 'hybrid' constitution, 'American with Iraqi, Arab characteristics. Iraqis have to play a major role in drafting this, but the Americans have to have the final say.' Women's rights must be guaranteed at all levels."

At least the Bushies keep up the "democratic" pretenses and never openly proclaim their authoritarian intentions. The imperious Dean, on the other hand, makes no bones about America's role as the hegemonic power: with the Dean administration at the helm, the Americans will always have the final say. The man isn't running for President. He won't settle for anything less than Emperor.

The ineffable arrogance of the idea that we can turn Iraq into the equivalent of the 51st state, albeit one "with Iraqi-Arab characteristics," is frightening coming from a serious candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Coming out of the mouth of the supposed "anti-war" candidate, it is downright eerie. What is this, anyway? Have we suddenly fallen through a hole in the space-time continuum? Has all reason fled, with only madmen left behind? The campaign has barely begun, and already Dean is completely reversing himself and betraying his base.

But it's a little early for that sort of thing, isn't it? Candidates usually wait until after they've won the election before selling their constituency down the river. Dean's great novelty may be that he's the fastest sellout, ever.

Before this presidential election season is over, "Are you deaning out on me?" may yet enter the vernacular to mean brazenly reversing course - without ever acknowledging the radical change in direction.

I want to apologize to my readers for ever saying a single good word about the double-talking, double-dealing, dubious Dean, a snake in the grass if ever there was one, slimier even than Bill Clinton. Just as Caligula was a piker, as Rome's imperial villains go, compared to the megalomanical evil of Nero, so the damage done by President Dean will far surpass that done by any of his recent predecessors. Caligula's malevolence merely singed Rome: Nero's burnt it to the ground.

Not to make any excuses for myself - I can't say my friends didn't warn me - but many have been taken in by Dean's ostensible opposition to the Iraq war. I got a lot of letters from many good people after writing my paean to the Dean "phenomenon." It's true, I inserted all the proper caveats, and said politicians aren't to be trusted, or something to that effect. Yet, still, it's amazing how gullible I talked myself into being: it's like watching a fantasy or a science fiction movie, when the sense of disbelief must be suspended in order to enjoy the experience. Hoping against hope that my worst suspicions would be dispelled as the campaign progressed, instead, the development of Dean the candidate has revealed that the man is not merely a liar, but a chameleon of uncommon ability.

There is a case to be made that a Dean victory would be worse than four more years of Team Bush. The Bush crowd at least is now saying that the occupation of Iraq is going to be as short as possible. We know they're lying, but at least they pay homage to the traditionally "isolationist," i.e. non-interventionist sentiments of the American people. The Democrats, and the more "internationalist" Republicans, like Senator Richard Lugar, are critical of the President for not "admitting" that the occupation is going to be anywhere from 5 to 10 years, if not more. They take the Dean line, that "we're stuck" there, and can't leave because, although it wasn't before, Iraq is somehow mysteriously tied in with our "national security."

This stuck-in-the-mud argument is pure balderdash. Every minute we spend there increases the danger to U.S. troops, who are sitting ducks for a major terrorist attack, and increases Iraqi and Arab resentment against the U.S., strengthening the hand of our enemies and endangering the American homeland. We either get out, or get driven out, bankrupting ourselves in the process.

I was really looking forward to an election year with some real debate over the question of the Empire, with at least Dean speaking up for the traditional anti-imperialism of the Democratic party's Bryanite-McGovenite wing. But I'm afraid that this time around the whole spectacle is going to be a crashing bore. Who cares if the two wings of the War Party engage in a foreign policy "debate"? In order to get a word in edgewise, the antiwar movement is going to have to mobilize behind a third party candidacy, most practically a party that already has ballot status in most states.

This narrows the field considerably, since the Libertarian and Green parties are the only ones that come close to meeting such a tough standard. Ralph Nader, who is well on his way to becoming the Norman Thomas of his generation, is widely known to be considering a run. The Libertarians, too, have an opportunity to make a major impact in 2004, although they show no signs of recognizing it. I've had a few letters from readers who would dearly like Congressman Ron Paul to run, as he did in 1988. Now that's the kind of doctor we need to run for President: not the politically ambidextrous Dr. Dean, but the principled plain-speaking Dr. Paul. If only he would do it... .

In any case, the Dean deception is the kind of fraud that opponents of our interventionist foreign policy would do well to steer clear of. He is no more opposed to our imperial foreign policy than is Joe Lieberman - or George W. Bush, for that matter. In spite of the electorate's increasing nervousness over the occupation of Iraq, all the major presidential candidates for President are singing the same hymn to global intervention, albeit in different keys. Wake me when it's over.


Barring some earth-shattering news, I'll be taking the long Labor Day weekend off. See you on Wednesday.

- Justin Raimondo

homepage: homepage: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j082703.html

i hate to say it 30.Aug.2003 06:16

i really do

but these aspects of Dean should have been obvious the second he tried to mildly chastise Kucinich for talking about decreasing Pentagon spending.

Seems that must be one of my big grievances with Bush, is letting the war machine try to suck America dry for the sake of some completely over-exaggerated threat that was manufactured at the "fear factory" as Jim McDermott called it, so why am I supposed to think Dean is any change for promising to do the same?

And sure enough, that's probably the quickest way to quagmire (if we weren't already there) is to just give up on trying to pull yourself out of the muck, but that seems to go right along with thinking that nothing's wrong at the Pentagon, doesn't it? We can vote out the lack a strategy to exit Iraq and vote in the lack of will to exit Iraq, and that improves the situation how?

Fact is, I'm worried that a fresh face in office with the sentiments that Dean's expressed will have carte blanche to get us in a couple more quagmires before it even starts to catch up with him the way it's catching up to Bush.
Bush seems awfully quiet these days when Blair's taking so much heat, but we could start all over again with Dean. I'm not saying vote for Bush, just saying that Dean not being any real alternative to Bush does not seem like news to me as it is to Justin.

But what do I know, I'm just a Begonia, f'r pete's sake...

America is the problem 30.Aug.2003 06:59


It doesn matter whether the ruler is Bush or Dean. The real issue is America is itself. If you want to end war, end America as a nation state. America is and has always been an Empire and will act accordingly. Most of these pro-Americans refuse to question and challenge the legitimacy of America itself.

Read this article on American Hegemony 30.Aug.2003 07:28


This is a really great article on American imperialism/hegemony. It simply puts everything into perspective. And Dean is right in line with it.

We need to find a bona fide connection of DEAN to the Tri-Lateral Commission. This guy is tri-lateral all the way..............

U.S. Weakness and the Struggle for Hegemony

by Immanuel Wallerstein

www.monthlyreview.org (from Imperialism Now Conference)

I am going to start with two things with which I think nearly all MR readers will probably agree. One, imperialism is an integral part of the capitalist world-economy. It is not a special phenomenon. It has always been there. It always will be there as long as we have a capitalist world-economy. Two, we are experiencing at the moment a particularly aggressive and egregious form of imperialism, which is now even ready to claim that it is being imperialist.

Now, I ask you to reflect upon that anomaly. How come at the moment we are living through a particularly aggressive and egregious form of imperialism, which for the first time in over a hundred years has been ready to use the words "imperial," and "imperialism"? Why should they do that? Now, the answer most people give in one word is U.S. strength. And the answer I will give in one word is U.S. weakness.

We have to start in 1945 when the United States became hegemonic, really hegemonic. What does hegemony in this context mean? It means that the U.S. nation-state was so much the strongest, it had an economic capability so far ahead of anybody else in the world as of 1945, that it could undersell anyone in their own home markets. The United States had a military strength that was unparalleled. As a consequence, it had an ability to create formidable alliances, NATO, the U.S.-Japan Defense Pact, and so on. At the same time the United States, as the hegemonic power, became culturally the center of the world. New York became the center of high culture and American popular culture went on its march throughout the world.

The first time I was in the Soviet Union, in the Brezhnev era, my host took me to a nightclub in Leningrad. The one thing that startled me in the Soviet Union, the whole time I was there, was that in this nightclub one heard American popular music sung in English. And, of course, ideologically, I think we underestimate the degree to which the theme of the "free world" has had legitimacy among wide segments of the world population.

So the United States was really on top of the world for about twenty-five years, and it got its way in whatever it wanted to do.

It is true that there was the Soviet Union, which posed a military difficulty for the United States. Nonetheless, the United States handled that very simply by an agreement. It is called Yalta, which encompasses more than just what happened at Yalta itself. I think the left has underestimated historically the reality and the importance of the Yalta arrangements that made the Cold War a choreographed arrangement in which nothing ever really happened for forty years. That was the important thing about the Cold War. It divided up the world into a Soviet zone that was about a third of the world, and the U.S. zone that was two-thirds. It kept the zones economically separate and allowed them to shout at each other loudly in order to keep their own side in order, but never to make any truly substantial changes in the arrangement. The United States was therefore sitting on top of the world.

This lasted only about twenty-five years. The United States ran into difficulty somewhere between 1967 and 1973 because of three things. One, it lost its economic edge. Western Europe and Japan become sufficiently strong to defend their own markets. They even began to invade U.S. markets. They were then about as strong and as competitive as the United States economically and that, of course, had political implications.

Secondly, there was the world revolution of 1968 that many MR readers were involved in, in one way or another. Think of what happened in 1968. In 1968, there were two themes that were repeated everywhere throughout the world in one version or another. One, we don't like the U.S. hegemony and dominance of the world, and we don't like Soviet collusion with it. That was a theme everywhere. That was not only the Chinese stance on the two superpowers but that of most of the rest of the world as well.

The second thing that 1968 made clear was that the Old Left, which had come to power everywhere—Communist parties, social-democratic parties, and national liberation movements—had not changed the world and something had to be done about it. We were not sure we trusted them anymore. That undermined the ideological basis of the Yalta agreement, and that was very important.

The third thing that happened is that there were people who didn't agree with Yalta. They were located in the third world and there were at least four significant defeats of imperialism that occurred in the third world. The first was China, where the Communist Party defied Stalin and marched on Kuomintang-controlled Shanghai in 1948, thus getting China out from under U.S. influence on the mainland. That was a central defeat in the U.S. attempt to control the periphery. Secondly, there was Algeria and all its implications as a role model for other colonial territories. There was Cuba, in the backyard of the United States. And finally there was Vietnam, which both France and then the United States were incapable of defeating. It was a military defeat for the United States that has structured world geopolitics ever since.

The threefold fact of the rise of economic rivals, the world revolution of 1968 and its impact on mentalities across the world, and Vietnam's defeat of the United States, all taken together, mark the beginning of the decline of the United States.

How could the rulers of the United States handle the loss of hegemony? That has been the problem ever since. There were two dominant modes of handling this loss of hegemony. One is that pursued from Nixon through Clinton, including Ronald Reagan, including George Bush, senior. All these presidents of the United States handled it the same way, basically a variant of the velvet glove hiding the mailed fist.

They sought to persuade Western Europe and Japan and others that the United States can be cooperative; that the others could have an alliance of semi-equals, though with the United States exerting "leadership." That's the Trilateral Commission and the G7. And, of course, they were using all this time the unifying force of opposition to the Soviet Union.
Secondly, there was the so-called "Washington Consensus" that coalesced in the 1980s. What is the Washington Consensus about? I remind you that the 1970s was the era when the United Nations proclaimed the decade of development. Developmentalism was the name of the game from the 1950s through the 1970s. Everybody proclaimed that countries could develop. The United States proclaimed it. The Soviet Union proclaimed it, and everybody in the third world proclaimed it—if only a state were organized properly. Of course, people disagreed about how to organize a state properly, but if only it were organized properly and did the right things, it could develop. This was the basic ideology; development was to be achieved by some kind of control over what went on within sovereign national states.

Now the Washington Consensus was the abandonment and the denigration of developmentalism, that had by the late 1980s visibly failed, and, therefore, everybody was ready to abandon it. They substituted for developmentalism what they called globalization, which simply meant opening up all the frontiers, breaking down all the barriers for: (a) the movement of goods; and more importantly (b) capital; but not (c) labor. And the United States set out to impose this on the world.

The third thing they did along this line of "cooperation" was an ideological consensus-building process at Davos. Davos is not unimportant. Davos was an attempt to create a meeting ground of the world's elites, including elites from the third world, and constantly bringing together and blending their political activity.

At the same time, the objectives of the United States during this period took three forms. One was to launch a counteroffensive. It was a counteroffensive of neoliberalism on three levels to: (1) reduce wages worldwide; (2) reduce costs to (and end ecological constraints on) corporations, permitting the total externalization and socialization of such costs; and (3) reduce taxation, which was subsidizing social welfare (that is to say subsidizing education, health care, and lifelong guarantees of income).

On all these three levels they were only partially successful. None of these three succeeded totally, but they all succeeded a little. However, cost curves were not brought down to anything like the 1945 level. The cost curves had gone way up and they are down now, but they are not down below the 1945 level, and they will go up again.

The second objective was to deal with the military threat. The real threat to U.S. military power, and they say it all the time, so let's believe them, is nuclear proliferation; because if every little country has nuclear weapons it becomes very tricky for the United States to engage in military action. That is what North Korea is demonstrating at this moment. North Korea only has two nuclear bombs, if what the newspapers say is correct. But that is enough to shake things up.

The third objective—and this was very crucial and they've been working at it since the 1970s—was to stop the European Union. The United States was for the European Union in the 1950s and 1960s when it was a means of getting France to agree to have Germany rearm. But once it became serious it was viewed as an attempt to create a European state of one variety or another, and the United States was of course strongly opposed to it.

What happened? First, we had the collapse of the Soviet Union. That was a disaster for the United States; it removed the most important political weapon they had in relation to Western Europe and East Asia.

Second, there was Saddam. Saddam Hussein started the first Gulf War. He did it deliberately. He did it deliberately to challenge the United States. He could not have done that if the Soviet Union had still been an active power. They would have stopped him from doing it because it would have been too dangerous in terms of the Yalta agreement. And he got away with it. That is to say at the end of the war, all he lost was what he had gained. He was back at the starting point. That is what has stuck in the craw for ten years. That war was a draw. It was not a victory for the United States.

Third, we saw in the 1990s, to be sure, a momentary spurt of the U.S. economy, but not of the world-economy as a whole and a spurt that is now over. But we now have a weakening of the dollar, and the dollar has been a crucial lever of the United States, enabling it to have the kind of economy it has and the dominance it has over the rest of the world. And finally, we had 9/11 that showed that the United States was vulnerable.

ENTER THE HAWKS. The hawks do not see themselves as the triumphant continuation of U.S. capitalism or U.S. power or anything else. They see themselves as a group of frustrated outsiders who for fifty years did not get their way even with Ronald Reagan, even with George Bush, senior, even with George Bush, Jr. before 9/11. They are still worried that George Bush, Jr. will chicken out on them. They think that the policy that went from Nixon to Clinton to the first year of George W. Bush, of trying to handle this situation, diplomatically, multilaterally—I call it the velvet glove—was an utter failure. They think it just accelerated the decline of the United States and they think that had to be changed radically by engaging in an egregious, overt, imperial action—war for the sake of war. They did not go to war on Iraq or Saddam Hussein because he was a dictator. They did not go to war on Iraq even for oil. I will not argue that point here, but they did not need the war on Iraq for oil. They needed it to show the United States could do it, and they needed that demonstration in order to intimidate two groups of people: (1) anybody in the third world who thinks that they should engage in nuclear proliferation; and (2) Europe. This was an attack on Europe, and that is why Europe responded the way it did.

I wrote an article in 1980 in which I said, "It is geopolitically inevitable that over the next period, there will emerge a Paris/Berlin/Moscow alliance." I said this when the Soviet Union was still in existence and I have repeated it ever since. Now, everybody talks about it. There is actually a website now, www.paris-berlin-moscou.info/, which reprints what people are writing in French, German, Russian, and English throughout Europe about the virtues of a Paris/Berlin/Moscow linkup.

We must not underestimate the second Security Council non-vote in March of this year. It is the first time since the United Nations was founded that the United States, on an issue that mattered to it, could not get a majority on the Security Council. Of course, they have had to veto various resolutions in the past but on no issue that was truly crucial to them. But in March 2003 they withdrew the resolution because they could not get more than four votes for it. It was a political humiliation and it was universally regarded as such. The United States has lost legitimacy, and that is why you cannot call it hegemonic anymore. Whatever you want to call it, there is no legitimacy now and that's crucial.

So, what should we look for in the next ten years? First, there is the question of how Europe will construct itself. It will be very difficult, but they will construct themselves and they will construct an army. Maybe not all of Europe, but the core. The United States is really worried about it, and that army will sooner or later link up with the Russian army.

Second, look at North East Asia. This is harder but I think China, a reunited Korea, and Japan will begin to move together politically and economically. Now, this will not be easy. The reunification of Korea will be a tremendously difficult thing to achieve. The reunification of China as well will be a difficult thing to achieve, and those countries have all sorts of reasons for hating each other and tensions with deep historical roots, but the pressure is on them. If, realistically, they are going to survive as independent forces in the world, they will move in this direction

Thirdly, you should watch the World Social Forum. I think that is where the action is. It is the most important social movement now on the face of the earth and the only one that has a chance of playing a really significant role. It has blossomed very fast. It has a wealth of internal contradictions that we should not underestimate and it will run through all sorts of difficult periods, and it may not make it. It may not survive as a movement that is a movement of movements, that has no hierarchical center, is tolerant of all the varieties within it and yet stands for something. This is not an easy game, but it is where the best hope lies

Finally, I would think you ought to look at the internal contradictions among capitalists. The basic political contradiction of capitalism throughout its history has been that all capitalists have a common political interest insofar as there's a world class struggle going on. At the same time, all capitalists are rivals of all other capitalists. Now that is a fundamental contradiction of the system and it's going to be very explosive.

I don't think we should underestimate the fact that in April of 2003 Lawrence Eagleberger, the secretary of state under the first President Bush, and still a close adviser of the current president's father, said in print that if the United States were now to invade Syria, he, Eagleberger, would be for impeaching George W. Bush. Now, that is not a very light thing for a person of that sort to say. So there is a message being sent, and who is the message coming from? I think it is coming from the father for one thing. And beyond that, it is coming from an important segment of U.S. capital and of world capital. They are not all happy about the hawks. The hawks have not won the game. They have grabbed hold of the U.S. state machinery; 9/11 made that possible. And the hawks know it is now or never and they will continue to push, because if they don't push forward, they will fall back. But they have no guarantee of success, and some of their biggest enemies are other capitalists who do not like the line with Europe and Japan because they basically do believe in the unity of capital; who don't think that the way you handle these things is by smashing all opposition, but would prefer to co-opt it. They are extremely worried that this is Samson pulling down the house.

We have entered a chaotic world. It has to do with the crisis of capitalism as a system, but I will not argue that now. What I will say is that this chaotic world situation will now go on for the next twenty or thirty years. No one controls it, least of all the United States government.

The United States government is adrift in a situation that it is trying to manage all over the place and that it will be incapable of managing. This is neither good nor bad, but we should not overestimate these people nor the strength on which they rely.

slight correction: Health INSURANCE not healthCARE 30.Aug.2003 07:34


Justin......I was fooled too. And people tried to warn me too. What can people like us say? Perhaps we need to make a commitment to do everything we can to stop all "peace and justice" liberals from blindly following Hawkish Dean.

Correction -- as pointed out to me on this very board: Dean isn't for healthcare for all. He is for universal INSURANCE. That's a big gift to the insurance industry.

And once those companies get on the Govt Gravy train.....watch out. Rates will skyrocket. And, because it will be federal law, everyone will have to pay whatever rates the insur cos charge.

Not only that -- I don't use medical providers that insurance companies limit you to!! Never have, never will! I go to HOLISTIC doctors.

Oh yay, a Government funded HMO! Can you imagine the protections the Feds can give the HMOs against pithy patients fighting for "unapproved" care? woooooo.

Also, don't forget: Dean is all for raising the retirement age to save money. WTF??? I think working to your bones till you are 68, 69, 70 is a sure way to make sure that most don't make it to collecting their first check!

Beware of wolves wearing wool 30.Aug.2003 07:46

and attempting to pull it over your eyes

Who is this Justin Raimondo? And what is antiwar.com?


He certainly spews a lot of venom. He sure looks cool with that cigarette hanging out of his mouth.


The right has a lot to fear in Howard Dean. He could beat Bush. The guy is not a far-left liberal, but he doesn't pretend to be. He is not the liar and slippery eel Mr. Raimondo accuses him of being either. This LONG and essentially substanceless article by an unabashed isolationist libertarian seems very short on facts to back up its claims.

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com. He is also the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement (with an Introduction by Patrick J. Buchanan), (1993), and Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans (1996). He is an Adjunct Scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, in Auburn, Alabama, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Libertarian Studies, and writes frequently for Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. He is the author of An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard.

To see what Howard Dean has to say for himself, go to his website.


yep 30.Aug.2003 08:11


that 2nd article there is very good. why didn't you publish it as the beginning of a new string? Doesn't have much to do with Howard Dean- it's just a description of the world we all live in.

To Anon: Beware of Wolves 30.Aug.2003 08:13


Character assasination does not answer the very real questions posed by the Dean expose. Listen to your own words: You sound just like a Bush operative, except you are just some apologist, romantic. Dean is as slimey as they come, my friend. Wake up.

I don't particularly submit to Justin's entire platform.... 30.Aug.2003 08:20


But he is telling the absolute truth about Dean.

yeah, yeah, yeah.......Dean's website...a little web of deceit perfectly orchestrated to snag real liberals. After all, real liberals are such darned good work horses! Look where we have taken him? Unprecedented!

I liken it to the how the radical right used the fundies to solidify a base of support. Hell, at least the neo-cons are willing to give the fundies something in exchange for their "loyalty" (abortion restrictions; faith-based initiatives).

Dean? In the midst of the American imperialist drive, how the fuck is Dean going to throw the "real liberals" a bone like funding Headstart if the black hole Pentagoons continue to clear the US Treasury? Oh........that's right......raise the retirement age to save money! Ohhhhh, that's right......Dean wants to rollback ALL Bush taxcuts. Uh, excuse me.....a few taxcuts for the poorer should actually remain and an increase in taxes for the top 10% should immediately be implemented.

Before Bush's tax cuts, what needed to happen was a tax increase on the extremely wealthy, a closing of treasonous tax loopholes for the rich, and, of course, fewer loopholes for corporations. Dean isn't suggesting this at all........ in fact, he doesn't have anything planned for bringing money back into the treasury. And he isn't talking about getting federal funding back to the states AT ALL.

Dean is talking out of his newly-revealed WHISTLE-ASS!

dean will make a nice lapdog for the right 30.Aug.2003 08:21

"no" to bush clones

Come on... it doesn't take the likes of Justin Raimondo to nail Dean on defense spending, all it takes is Dean...
And that very likely means the "far right" couldn't care if Bush loses to Dean or not...

"[Dean] Heh, heh, heh. Yeah, that's the one we want [to run against]"
-Karl Rove, senior strategist to President Bush on the campaign of Howard Dean.

Washington Post
Rove Spends the Fourth Rousing Support for Dean
By Juliet Eilperin
Saturday, July 5, 2003; Page A05

"As a dozen people marched toward Dana Place wearing Dean for President T-shirts and carrying Dean for America signs, Rove told a companion, " 'Heh, heh, heh. Yeah, that's the one we want,' " according to Daniel J. Weiss, an environmental consultant, who was standing nearby. " 'How come no one is cheering for Dean?' "

Then, Weiss said, Rove exhorted the marchers and the parade audience: " 'Come on, everybody! Go, Howard Dean!' "


Have to wonder what real choices look like, and I don't think they look like Dean.


but he's electable 30.Aug.2003 09:30

DeanFan #1

But Den is electable. Do you want four more years of Bush?

Dean is dangerous 30.Aug.2003 09:40

Dean is dangerous


Dean is electable? That is the problem. He will be worse than Bush!

Open the eyes please 30.Aug.2003 09:43


Get real

Dean is a disaster. All these liberals who are jumping on the Dean bandwagon out of fear of Bush are being led by the nose. Pathetic really. Pathetic

reply 30.Aug.2003 09:44

Indy Poster

I cannot believe so many progressives are hot for Dean. This 'anyone but Bush' approach is a blind reaction and will only lead to bigger problems. Such panic will not get us anywhere.

Ridicuous 30.Aug.2003 10:09

Matthew Cheney

The idea that Dean has somehow intentionally misled his supporters into thinking he's a pacifist is ridiculous - none of his views have changed, they've just gotten more airplay as he's become more popular. I support Dean for a variety of reasons, none of which I'd expect Justin Raimondo to be capable of agreeing with and so I won't even try to convince him. But I've never been under the delusion that my views of foreign policy are the same as Dean's, and I haven't seen any misleading statements from him. Don't blame Dean for other people's misconceptions of him, misconceptions which he's frequently addressed. If you want to beat him up, beat him up over his ideas regarding Israel and Palestine. Beat him up for his fiscal conservatism. But to call the man a deceiver and a liar is, well, deceitful and a lie.

New Hampton, New Hampshire

It doesnt seem like Dean is lying 30.Aug.2003 11:17


Its not like Justin dug up secret sources, or anonymous quotes. He simply quoted Mr. Dean. The article seems like an editorial masquarading as journalism.

Another thing, why is it that the left seems to want to attack itself? We are our own worst enemy.

And saying Dean would be "worse then Bush" as one poster said is pure hyprebole. The only (living) person who could be worse would be John Ashcroft. I view Dean as sort of like Clinton- not great, but about the best we can hope for in a plutocracy. He's prochoice, pro gay rights and he doesnt believe tha this is The End of Days. Im not a registared democrat but I it good to hear that someone can run without goosestepping the Bush war.

The biggest question still remains; what do we do in Iraq. The invasion was a travesty, but I think that simply leaving would be similar to what Reagan did to Afganostan in 80's, namely leaving the country a shambles. It would also be similar to what happened in Post WWI Germany, wher huge foriegn debt lead to the economic collapse of the Weimer Republic ant the Rise of the Social Democratic Party.

If the war was mistake we need to adress our mistake; namely rebuild Iraq with our money, not theirs (ie not sell off their oil rights to BP. This is the stupidest idea imaginable, although I am sure that its right in line with the Bush foriegn policy mindset)- preferably under the UN, I think that the US credibility in nation building and democracy is about zero at the moment. It is great that people opposed the war, but honestly we need a clear path for the future. Anybody have any ideas, they should speak up now, Im really intrested in what people are FOR, not against. Simply saying that "the War was wrong" doesnt cut it- the milk is on the floor and the shit hit the fan, we (liberals) need something to be for.

Heres my idea- why not get your best ideas together and write Howard? Say I think your plan is wrong and I think that you should do "X" in Iraq. Dont call him a liar, asshole or whatever. Send in your ideas, see what happens.

Dean Was Slated To Run Before September 11, 2001 30.Aug.2003 12:06

why should we believe him now?

Sep 5, 2001

Vermont Governor to Announce He Will Not Seek Re-Election, According to Sources

By Christopher Graff
Associated Press Writer

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) - Gov. Howard Dean will not seek re-election next year, The Associated Press has learned.

The governor planned to make his announcement Wednesday, sources familiar with his decision told the AP.

Dean told his Cabinet of his plans at a meeting Wednesday morning, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity. He received a standing ovation from Cabinet members.

Dean, a Democrat, signed the landmark civil-unions law that made Vermont the first state to extend the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples.

He became governor in 1991 when then-Gov. Richard Snelling died in office. Dean, 52, has confounded political analysts in the past year, at one point seemingly prepared to run for re-election next year and at other points indicating he would not.

A former chairman of the National Governors Association, Dean previously has flirted with a presidential bid. Analysts suspect he may run for president in 2004.

In an interview last month marking his 10th anniversary in office, Dean said he believes his governorship will leave a mark well beyond his longevity. His two sources of greatest personal pride are land conservation and child welfare.

"A hundred years from now, we will have hunting, hiking, fishing and snowmobile riding because of what we did in this decade," he said.

He's more widely known, though, for his work on children's issues and health care. After Vermont's prescription drug plan was thrown out by a federal appeals court in June, Dean urged Vermont residents to order discount drugs from Canada.

Two Republicans, state Treasurer Jim Douglas and former Human Services Secretary Cornelius Hogan, are already campaigning for the governor's office. Democrats Lt. Gov. Douglas Racine and state Sen. Peter Shumlin have indicated they would run if Dean did not. A Progressive, Anthony Pollina, who ran last year, is also expected to seek the office again.

AP-ES-09-05-01 1048EDT

This story can be found at :  http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA5PFC89RC.html

Hear it is 30.Aug.2003 12:11


Dean is worse than Bush is not hyperbole. Numerous people are suggesting the same thing.

If Dean is elected, then all the people Bush scares will go back to sleep. Dean is not going to address the fundamental problems we face. World environmental collapse due to out of control industrial society and its suicidal philosophy of endless growth. The total control of world resources, including food and water by a few corporations with only one agenda - domination.

Dean or Bush would be essentially irrelevant except for the interesting fact that Bush scares people more and so is actually more likely to wake them up to action. For this reason, I think Dean may actually be worse for the world in the long run.

I take it you'll be voting for Bush, then 30.Aug.2003 13:46



Hold you fire, Tatyana 30.Aug.2003 14:08

Aware of Wolves

You accuse me of character assassination because I made fun of Justin's tough-guy photo which he chose to place at the top of each and every one of his editorials on his website? Or because I copied and pasted his bio from the same source? Or because I called him an isolationist and a libertarian? (HIS WORDS!)

I sound like a Bush operative? c'mon, where is that coming from? (They are among us here, to be sure...)

Apologist for Dean I am not either. It's just that all the Dean-bashing out there worries me, and I question its sources. I don't trust anybody who has Pat Buchanan writing an intro for his book (like Raimondo). I know lots of people think Dean is a wolf is sheep's clothing. The ambiguity in the title I chose was intentional. I don't think Dean is a saint, but to call him a liar or to say that he would be worse that Bush is just wrong.

And I don't buy the argument that becuase lots of people are saying it, therefore is true. Or the one says Dean was thinking about running a long time ago, therefore he is a liar.

It also makes me wonder, when the Washington Post wants me to think that Karl Rove isn't afraid of Dean.

Howard Dean is a self-described moderate. I posted a link to his web site so people can go see what he has to say.

I like Kucinich, but I think he is too far left for most mainstream Americans.

'James' 30.Aug.2003 14:18

your 'vote' DOESN'T MATTER.


Diebold Voting Machine Controversy in Ohio

the REAL Scoop on Diebold Computer Vote Fraud
Aviel Rubin called allegations by Bev Harris that the Diebold software may have been *designed* to facilitate fraud "ludicrous"--because his team NEVER EVEN EXAMINED the Diebold software in question. Incredibly, this software keeps not one, but two Microsoft Access data tables of voting results--like a business keeping two sets of account books. The two tables are notionally identical copies of the votes collated from all polling stations. The first table is for on-demand reports which might uncover alteration of the data--such as spot checks of results from individual polling stations. The second table is used to determine the election result--but it can be hacked and altered to produce fake election totals without affecting spot check reports derived from the first table.

50 Links to 'Electronic Voting Machine Fraud' & 'Rigged Vote-Counting'

Voting In The New World Order

Voting Machines: Vote Tampering in the 21st Century

Theft of Presidency

hyperbole or rhetoric? 30.Aug.2003 14:55


I still believe that calling Dean "worse then Bush" is a misnomer and underrates the dangers of a semi-literate, simple minded religous zelot poses as junta in cheif.

Saying that everyone will "go back to sleep" if he is elected is an issue, but it doesnt make the man a religous zelot or simple minded. It poses a real problem for progressives (such as myself) but one I would much rather face then the prospect of another four years of worrying about Ashcrofts' goons at my door. As one who was never asleep for the Clinton years, I can attest that it is possible to vote for someone and protest against them, write angry letters to them and generaly dislike them (I dont hink I voted for him in 96, but that was a few years back now and Im not sure.). Keeping folks awake is our job, not Bushes (although he does do an admirable job I must say). Its up to us to keep the important environmental and justice issues going- its just that Dean, as a basicly decent individual, is way more likely to respond to these issues then Bush. The fact is that the majority of Americans disagree with Bush's land abuse policies. Dean could make a lot of headway against Bush on those topics (how about a "need air?" campaign commercial?). Dean is also talking about sanctioning china for human rights abuses (boy he gonna risk losing the walmart vote on that one.)

Im still waiting for a left wing "plan B" for Iraq. One that prevents the complete collapse of Iaqi infrastructure, which would doubtless lead to the rise of another repressive western regime.

"again" Makes a Great Point 30.Aug.2003 15:36

No Dean

Dean is a political windsock. He has proven his skills at modifying his message to suit what he thinks his audience wants to hear. If elected, which is unlikely, he will certainly pacify the uninformed 'liberals' back to sleep. If the Bush Crime Gang stays in power, the 'liberals' will have a harder time falling into a deeper sleep.

What to do in Iraq? End the criminal invasion of western forces, cancel all contracts with US corporate terrorists and revoke their charters, dissolve the US sponsored Iraqi councel, extradite Challabi to Jordan to face his prison sentence for imbezelment, and bring in an international force into Iraq for the express purpose of facilitating elections ASAP.

Also, we should arrest the most vile members of the Bush Bandits, and send them to the Hague following their trial for treason here in the US. In the longer term, we can demand international monitors to prevent additional voting fraud in the US, and elect someone like Dennis Kucinich so that we don't continue to blaze the path to our own destruction.

Duncan 30.Aug.2003 18:07


"I can attest that it is possible to vote for someone and protest against them, write angry letters to them and generaly dislike them"

Sounds like you'vew pretty much outlined your whole problem right there. Are you a homeowner by any chance?

Take a look at your sentences. They go like this - "Such and such is a real problem about Dean, BUT, most Americans disagree with Bush so we need to support Dean," and "Such and such is terrible about Dean, BUT, we need to just bend over and take it because . . . ," etc.

A lot of this tone of apology. I noticed that in myself when trying to defend the Greens. I can't defend the fact that the Greens' 10 Key Values are inherently in support of capitalism. But I won't take up everyone's time on here trying to apologize for that. People should make their own decisions. Everyone has their own reasons. But if I stood up and went on and on about how important the Greens were - even though they have 9 million problems - I'd have to expect a constant assault.

I'm basically saying, when a lot of what you're having to do is apologize - in a sense, or make excuses for - a candidates behavior, there's a problem. There will always be that problem, but how many apologies does one have to make?

The way that I realized the major problem I have with the Greens - that they are in support of capitalism - was by listening to the Peace and Freedom and the Socialists. I'll continue to work for the Greens and get them into office, but I won't try to endlessly make excuses for them, nor try to convince everyone what's so great about them when a lot of my sentences have big BUTs in them.

And right now, the thing we need to be focusing on is the voting machines. That issue isn't going anywhwere, and politicos are hoping it simply dissapears. They'll label people who speak out about it as trying to cause trouble, etc., sort of the same arguments the Dean worshipers make - don't rock the boat! Ever! If something bothers you, send and email and get back to work.

Aware of wolves 30.Aug.2003 18:15


"It's just that all the Dean-bashing out there worries me, and I question its sources."

Justin R. often has interesting insights and then everyone tries to dis what he says because he's a jerk libertarian and comes out against Israel fairly overtly. But the Dean criticisms are ALL OVER THE PLACE. Norman Solomon - despite his Green bashing - has made a lot of good points lately.

If you need sources, just put my author name into a search on this site and you'll have all the sources you ever dreamed of.

Republicans want Dean in. They think he's 'progressive,' so it's unlikely they are spamming against Dean. I've heard they are donating to his campaign because they think Bush will win then.

My guess? Some faction of the dems, or the DLC itself, are going to try to push Hillary or Wesley Clark. Hillary was pro-war, Clark is antiwar, apparently, bizarre as that may seem. But I think they'll do the 'in' thing and drop a candidate in at the last second. And then all this about Dean may come to nothing.

Except that we learned when not to be fooled, and how it's done. We'll be faster to react the next time.


Anti-American Freedom Fighter

This debate about whom to support itself is a phony debate designed to distract from the fundamental issues. What the Liberals and Democrats try to cover up is the fact that the issue should be the moral and political legitimacy of Imperialist America itself--not Bush or Dean or whatever US war criminal they put into office.

All the phony progressives waste their time bickering over which bullshit candidate to pimp to yet don't want to challenged the legimitacy of this America Empire. Probably because deep down they support and believe in the Empire. Deep down these political con men buy into the ideology of American Goodness and benevolence which is fundamental to the problem. This ideology even has a name--its called American Exceptionalism, and it is a dangerous ideology in that it provides a Moralist veneer to justify US aggression and domination around the world, all the while appealing to American nationalists' instinctive self-righteousness and sense of their own virtue. See Duncan for example.

"If the war was mistake we need to adress our mistake; namely rebuild Iraq with our money, not theirs (ie not sell off their oil rights to BP. This is the stupidest idea imaginable, although I am sure that its right in line with the Bush foriegn policy mindset)- preferably under the UN, I think that the US credibility in nation building and democracy is about zero at the moment. "

This comment is more self-delusion. America doesn't have anything to with "nation building or democracy" in any way shape or form in Iraq or anywhere else. How the hell can America claim to export democracy to Iraq when the USA itself is ruled by a Regime that stole an election to begin with? You might as well be asking the British Empire or the Nazi Third Reich to engage in "nation building and democracy" in Iraq. It would have the same legitimacy. The USA is interested in creating Pro-American clients states and neo-colonies around the world, regardless of whether it is a Demorat or Republican dictator in charge. Period.

You may not want to face this truth, but the American Empire is incapable of doing "good" around the world. What America likes to do is to disguise its predatory agenda behind santimonious propaganda about Democracy, Feedom, and Human rights--which are all lies regardless of who is in power. Dean is more dangerous than Bush in that he is a Clintonite style Humanitarian Imperialist who will be able to get away with greater crimes because of his more palatable mask.

Think about it, who has killed more people so far--Bush or Clinton? Its Clinton by far.

In terms of Iraq, the USA should withdrawl immediately and start paying reparations to Iraq. These Iraq reparations can be immediately put into rebuiliding Iraq and building up an *indiginous*--not American controlled--Iraqi policing mechanising. IT would also mean no US military installations of any kind in Iraq or American (proxy) control of Iraqi oil. This of course is the last thing American Imperialists want--whether that be Bush or Dean or whomever. The bastards want Empire, in one form or another. The only differences are tactical differences about how you Market this Empire.

Raimondo and the Libertariains are right when they expose Dean as an Empire builder with a Humanitarian mask. This humanitarism is purely a Machiavellian propaganda cover designed to appeal to bleeding heart Liberals and others who believe in the Cult of American Exceptionalism.

"Dean is also talking about sanctioning china for human rights abuses (boy he gonna risk losing the walmart vote on that one.) "

Ha, that would be typical US hypocrisy. Dean should start sanctioning America for its own Human Rights violation from Iraq to Guantanomo Bay Gulag to the repression of Muslim and Arab immigrants to the American Prison Industrial Complex which is the greatest in the world by the way (larger than China despite the fact that America has 1/5 the population no less). Of course in the reality that Americans like Dean live in, the USA is a champion of human rights, freedom, blah, blah, blah. Americans are pure in motive and heart... More American Moralist propaganda.

What this human rights sanctions would really be about would be a disguised form of trade protectionism nothing more--sold with a Human Rights mask. Dean's concern for "human rights" is purely cynical and has to do with the fact that China is a leading economic competitor of the USA.

Ask Dean, for example, if he would be willing to put sanctions on the USA or his beloved Israel for its human rights violations against Palestinians, and see what Dean has to say. Of course, Israel is a great "democracy, " and Dean is an AIPAC flunky. This should be the litmus test of his sincereity on these issues.

Check this link about this Dean the great moderate progressive, and his wonderful concern for human rights:

Attitudes towards Justice

Dean's approach to criminal justice is regressive and draconian. Dean the governor was no friend of the public's right to legal defense. According to various attorneys in public defender's offices around the state, Dean underfunded public defense, pouring monies into state's attorneys, police, and corrections instead. According to the Rutland, Vermont daily, The Rutland Herald, this meant that state's attorneys were able to round up ever-increasing numbers of criminal defendants, but public defenders were not given comparable resources to respond. This, too, helped to fill the prisons. Its not that crime increased, but that police had more laws that they could arrest people for (and more resources with which to do so). As an illustration of his opposition to a fair defense for all, Dean once stated at a meeting of criminal defense lawyers that he believed his job as governor was to make the defense attorneys' job as tough as possible. He also tried to block a $150,000 federal grant aimed at assisting defendants with mental disabilities.

Why would someone want to do that unless he had doubts about the validity of the 6th amendment to the US constitution? Is he motivated by a need to appear tough on crime? As Governor he claimed the legal system unfairly benefited criminals over prosecutors. According to his own words, he wanted to "quickly convict guilty criminals,"(so much for the presumption of innocence), and opined that the US needs a "re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties." John Ashcroft, perhaps there'd be a job for you in a Dean administration.



home ownership? what that got to do with anything 30.Aug.2003 19:28


Oddly enough, yes I am a homeowner, bt I wasnt the last time I voted for a democrat president (that would be 1992). Sometimes you need to stick to your ideals win or lose. Sometimes when when the alternatives all suck, you make alliances and vote for the best candidate. In 92 I was living with five other people in a rental in Olympia. I have also lived in a VW bus, a no electricity cabin on a farm and a tent in the woods, Does this establish the my living situation credit for you? The fact that I worked three thousand hours a year for two years to buy a house has little to do with my political choices- it has a lot to do with me getting tired of giving some MF a grand a month for a house where they wouldnt fix a leaky faucet. Renting doesnt ,make you liberal, it means your supporting someone else so they live off your labor. Plenty of working class people suck it up and save money to buy a house. Once you clear the purchase, its actualy cheaper then renting (due to the fact that you get to deduct the interest and property taxes, which your landlord get to deduct righ now). You should really look into it.

My whole position on Dean centers around the fact that I think the GOP is in the proccess of setting up a dictatorship, I think that they have the new co,puters rigged, the palms greased and the fall setup. I think that the only chance the US has of avoiding a Bush Resident for life is a massive defeat that can be verified in exit polls. if 65% of polled voters say they voted democrat, I dont think that the coup will stick. I could be wrong here, but the alternatives (ie civil war, emmigration) are all pretty onerous to me. Voting for a moderate left of center democrat seems the best way to go, given the current situation. If the fix is in, it will do little harm. My hope is that Dean will win, in large part due to liberals,he'll owe us big time, we get more- remember Gore refused to reach out to liberals, and he lost in part because of it (Katherine Harris and Jeb aside). I dont think that Dean will forget that fact.

So Fred, what you say that we keep this on topic and avoid the personal attack. In other words dont call me an apologist and I wont call you a slacker elitist. OK?

Solutions please 30.Aug.2003 20:09

John Timothy

Your views pro and con on Dean seem to be lot of verbal thinking both ways. Reality, not words, should inform our thinking. The reality of Bush is the record deficits and wars of aggression his administration brought to the USA and the world. The reality of Dean is his experience as a Governor with progressive policies, and his general lack of experience in foreign policy.

As president, Dean would almost certainly inherent Bush's Iraq mess. That is the sad reality forced on all of us by Bush and the neo-cons (Likud sympathizing warmongers in the defense policy board). The big real world problem we now face is how to repair Iraq, and keep the Bush mess from spiraling the whole Mideast into Chaos. Does anyone have any workable suggestions?

A Bit off Base 30.Aug.2003 21:32

Paul J. Gessing

Dean is no peacenik, nor is he a noninterventionist. Any effort to portray him as such may be the result of desperation by antiwar folks like us to project our hopes onto him.

As much as the guy is not a libertarian, I still plan to vote for him because he is the only one speaking the truth about Iraq to Bush's face, and I think the guy has a far deeper understanding of the realities of both the electoral system that he needs to win and the situation overseas.

I, like you, am not sold on all of his politics, but the fact that he's willing to stand up and call Bush a liar while all the other Dems and R's are cowering in the corner or calling for more blood, is at least a start. At this point, I'd vote for most anyone but Bush - except Hillary Clinton.

Origin of Dean Spam on Portland IMC 02.Sep.2003 08:21

click link