Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (17432)	11/23/2003 3:20:56 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793727

Dean's negative tilt in Iowa By Thomas Oliphant, 11/23/2003 THOMAS OLIPHANT WASHINGTON HOWARD DEAN is dropping about $300,000 of his gazillions in Iowa these days on two preposterous assertions about the presidential candidate who is leading him there. One is flat-out false about Iraq, and the other sets up an assertion by Dean about himself and the postwar mess that takes the term "misleading" to new depths. Those gobs of campaign cash -- spent on a mailing to Iowa Democrats and on the first television attack ad of the presidential campaign -- also illustrate just how silly and wrong, not to mention mean-spirited and undignified, is all the political rhetoric about who was "for" the war in Iraq and who was "against" it. Dean's effort to overcome a late-summer, early fall slide against Representative Dick Gephardt began with a written attack on Gephardt that surfaced just before a big mid-month Democratic dinner in Des Moines. The TV ad started right after the affair and is still running. Both raise questions about Dean, not Gephardt. In the TV ad, a voice (female, of course) states ominously, "October 2002. Dick Gephardt agrees to coauthor the Iraq war resolution giving George Bush the authority to go to war." Retorts Dean from a small-town street, "I opposed the war in Iraq." The ad also notes that Gephardt voted for the recently passed $87 billion appropriation for military and reconstruction costs, with Dean's voice responding, "And I'm against spending another $87 billion there." Both points are unworthy of a serious presidential candidate. This junk is generally accepted in politics, but the situation in Iraq is too serious and deadly for tolerance of it now. As the facts show, Gephardt was no more for war than Dean was; the facts show that each of them was basically in favor of the same thing, namely bringing matters with Iraq to a climactic head. 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. Lacking votes, the Biden-Lugar proposal was never formally introduced. Instead, the negotiations with Democrats produced the resolution that passed. It authorized force for several other offenses beyond prohibited weapons (including ballistic missiles, which Iraq had), but also encouraged UN involvement. 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. As for the $87 billion, the ad misstates Dean's position. In debates and statements he has said the United States has no choice but to fund the occupation. He told Iowa reporters last month, "We can't cut and run from Iraq." In addition, Dean has said that he supports spending $87 billion but would not have voted for the bill in Congress unless previously enacted tax cuts were repealed to pay for it. Contrary to the ad, however, he supported funding the occupation and added that he was not going to raise the issue in the campaign against people who supported it without the tax proviso. The best summary of the real political test posed by Iraq in the campaign was offered by Dean himself recently: "Trying to have it both ways demonstrates neither strong leadership nor good judgment." Now that Gephardt is up on the air with a response to Dean's baloney, I have a suspicion that Iowans who have a record of disliking this kind of campaigning will take Dean up on this point. boston.com