I think Dean and I finally agree on something! http://usatoday.printthis.clickabil...t/2004-01-14-dean-bosnia_x.htm&partnerID=1660 Dean urged Clinton to take unilateral action in Bosnia By Steve Komarow, USA TODAY Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean, a strong critic of what he calls President Bush's unilateral approach to foreign policy, urged President Clinton to act unilaterally and enter the war in Bosnia in 1995. (Related item: Text of letter) "I have reluctantly concluded that the efforts of the United States and NATO in Bosnia are a complete failure," he wrote, citing reports of genocide during the Bosnian civil war. "If we ignore these behaviors ... our moral fiber as a people becomes weakened. ... We must take unilateral action." The July 19, 1995, letter, obtained by USA TODAY, was written on Dean's official stationery as Vermont governor. The language appears to contradict Dean's core complaint that President Bush has followed a unilateral foreign policy, instead of a multilateral approach that relies on consultation and joint action with allies. He has repeatedly attacked Bush's decision to invade Iraq. "I think getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a wonderful thing," he saidlast month. "But the question is, is it a good idea to send 135,000 troops unilaterally to do it?" In the 1995 letter, Dean argued for unilateral action in Bosnia on moral grounds. "As the Catholic Church and others lost credibility during the Holocaust for not speaking out, so will the United States lose credibility," he wrote. The civil war in the former Yugoslavia gave rise to war crimes and mass murders not seen in the West since World War II. U.N. peacekeeping had failed, but the Clinton administration was undecided on whether to take military action. Dean told Clinton that America had to intervene alone because the United Nations and NATO were unable to act effectively. He called for Clinton to bomb the Bosnian Serbs and supply arms to the Bosnian Muslims. He opposed using American ground troops. 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. Dean's support for the war in Bosnia is one of several examples he uses to differentiate himself from Democrats who oppose virtually all international intervention. His advisers say his stance has remained consistent over the years: A humanitarian crisis of the scale that occurred in Bosnia should trigger an armed intervention. So, too, would an attack or imminent attack on the United States. The word "imminent" is key to differentiating Dean's policy from the president's decision to invade Iraq, said Jeremy Ben-Ami, policy director for Dean's campaign. Bush "sold the war on the basis of an imminent threat to U.S. security, and that has now been shown to be false," Ben-Ami said. Since the threat from Iraq was not imminent, the administration could not properly justify the war, he said. However, when Bush laid out the case for the war in his 2003 State of the Union address, he said the United States should not wait for an imminent threat. "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent," Bush said. "Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein ... is not an option."
Everybody needs a few juicy rationalizations to get through each day....especially Presidential candidates!!!!
I don't see a contradiction here. Other than the Greeks, I don't think many in the world would have been upset about us intervening to halt that genocide. 'Unilateral' yes, but with a different set of circumstances. Implicit in the use of 'unilateral' WRT the Iraq war was that we were going against most of the world's opinion. (FWIW, I still approve of the Iraq war, and still disapprove of Bush's lack of diplomacy). Although I am not on Dean's bandwagon, I'll give him some points for his stance on Bosnia. It will serve humanity and also the US's long-term interests to act out of moral conviction such as this (and not just always in our self-interest).
I'm sorry, I thought that this took place before 2001, back when GWB and the rest of the GOP establishment would have anybody who mentioned the words "nation" and "building" in the same sentence reported to the House Un-American Activities Committee.... Rationalization on aisle 6.....
I am not the biggest Dean fan in the world, but I read an article about him recently in the New Yorker that made me think better of him. Apparently he is very pragmatic and flexible, which some attribute to his background as a physician, when it comes to dealing with problems. Example: he allowed civil unions, but he is pro-death penalty, even though Vermont doesn't have the death penalty (this was before he was running for president). He makes individual judgments on issues and is described as having a "reactive" style; This is not to be confussed with being wishy washy, as once he chooses a solution/approach, he does not waver from it unless absolutely necessary. Policy wise, he is pretty moderate. His first cabinet in Vermont (he took over when the Republican governor died early in his term) was composed entirely of Republicans, and he kept them on throughout the remainder of his term.
"Unilateral" alone is not a cuy and dry postion. It differs from situation to situation. But that requires someone to think and give an analysis of the sitation. Not react, like Bush did. Sometimes I think that Bush wanted to save the "Bush name" as the one the "let Sadamm get away..." So, he'd do anything to save his name (personal war). 911 and WMD were just excuses.
I have seen the liberals touting this falsehood quite a bit lately. Dean is an extremist on the following issues: 1. Taxes - he wants to *dramatically* raise taxes and cancel out the tax cuts that have spurred tremendous recent economic growth 2. Foreign Policy - Dean's foreign policy will let our enemies stomp all over us 3. National Security - Dean's stance on the Patriot Act will allow terrorists to run rampant
2. Foreign Policy - Dean's foreign policy will let our enemies stomp all over us 3. National Security - Dean's stance on the Patriot Act will allow terrorists to run rampant Only if you're so gullible that you believe the weirdest and most extreme right-wing propaganda. Then again, since you don't actually think for yourself, what can we expect from you.
So Major, by reading your response, I take it that you think Howard Dean's proposal to dramatically increase the tax burden on working Americans is a mistake?
So Major, by reading your response, I take it that you think Howard Dean's proposal to dramatically increase the tax burden on working Americans is a mistake? (1) I am not sure he wants to do that. (2) You may have your candidates confused. The relative tax burden on middle class families under *this* administration has risen substantially, as noted in other articles posted on these boards. (3) I am in favor of mixed party government; if Congress is Republican, then having a Democratic President ensures that fewer ridiculous proposals on either side pass. This is why '92-'94, and '00+ have been disasters, while '94-'00 was a period where we actually made progress on critical issues such as slowing the growth of government spending. In other words, even if he were to push a proposal to raise taxes notably, it would never pass. (4) Just because I don't respond to every stupid you write, you should not take it that i agree with you. That would be a very dumb assumption to make.
Why do people think that tax breaks will make the world a happy place; Joy is the world? No...In the end, you still have to get a job, make a living and try to make a better live for yourself. Lower taxes will not make your dreams come true. I mean, sure. Lower taxes are great. But sometimes they need to be raised in order to off-set deficits. Tax breaks for the rich ($100,000 or more) are just another pile of cash for their coffers. But Tax breaks for the middle class is just a measly $300 dollars. Big deal. Half a months rent. Are they rich? NO....back to work they go. So, who's in a better postion to pay higher taxes? The poor or middle classs? It's a higher percentage of their total worth compared to what necessities cost. The rich CAN afford to pay higher taxes in deficit times. In reallity, it's a shared burden. So be it.
Wrong, numbnuts, the increase of the share of the tax burden on the middle class is the direct result of Bush's tax cuts. PROOF: OWNED
Misguided liberals, I direct you to my new thread entitled HOWARD DEAN'S PLAN TO DRAMATICALLY RAISE TAXES ON YOU Time to learn some facts. It proves you all wrong. Again.
Sam, this questionable assertion has absolutely nothing to do with Dean's plan to raise taxes on you. Once again, you try to change the subject.
What a great, detailed analysis of Dean's stance on the issues . I never realized his foreign policy would let our enemies stomp all over us. I thought it would let them take our women and children, but not go any further than that. And Geez, I figured his stance on the Patriot Act would allow Al Queda and Hamas to strategize in our public libraries, but I didnt think they would run rampant too.
Let's go back to the slow motion replay of your exposure in this thread: OK, Trader Jorge asserts that Dean wants to reverse the Bush tax cuts, I agree with that.' Trader Jorge implies that a reversal of Bush's tax cuts will "dramatically increase the tax burden working Americans" Uh Oh! Danger! Captain! Iceberg off the Starboard Bow! Unfortunately the Iceberg cited is a bipartisan consensus: So, unlike what Trader Jorge asserts, that the repeal of Bush's tax cuts would "dramatically increase the tax burden working Americans" in fact the reversal of Bush's tax cuts would do the exact opposite. Rather, the share of the tax burden on working Americans would decrease Too late, the damage has been sustained, better to abandon ship, head for the life boats and start a new thread, rather than deal with this wreckage: Women and Children last! Trader_Jorge requires a spot on the lifeboat for himself and his steamer trunk of foppish paraphernelia! Not even a "Game set match" will help you now, little man: OWNED
