Dear Justin Raimondo,

I think the insults you are throwing at Dean are completely unwarranted. I would have no problem with you merely arguing that Dean's position towards Iraq is wrong, but you have no basis to use the insults that you did. Come on! You called him as a "double-talking, double-dealing, dubious Dean, a snake in the grass if ever there was one, slimier even than Bill Clinton" and you suggested that he would be worst then Bush. Regardless of whether Dean's position towards Iraq is the correct one, his position is not a hypocritical one. To my knowledge, Dean has never claimed to be a pacifist and he has definitely not claimed to be a libertarian. He has not changed his position and therefore does not deserve the remarks you made. Just because one is not a pacifist, doesn't mean they have to automatically support every war their government comes up with and every use of military force. Dean is able to see shades of gray and believes that there are some cases that justify the use of the military and some that do not. This position is not hypocritical.

I think you misunderstand Dean because you are viewing the world through your libertarian glasses and are forgetting the fact that most people do not look at the world this way. When a libertarian wants to evaluate the rightness of an action, they look to who is performing the action. If it's the government doing the action, then it's an immoral action. Most people, however, Dean included, look to other factors to determine the morality of an action. Rather than just looking at who is doing the action, they look to the action itself and the consequences that will ensue from it. This explains the differing reaction to Iraq and Liberia. In one case, we have a country that poses no threat, does not want an invasion, an international community that is against an invasion, and a President that lies about the reasons for going to war. In Liberia, we have a situation where the people clearly want our intervention, where the president is even willing to step down for peacekeepers to come, where an intervention could save lives and be a lot less likely to result in deaths to our troops than Iraq. I am not even for intervention in Liberia, but I am able to recognize the moral differences in these two cases. Going into Iraq was completely immoral; going into Liberia is probably just not such a good idea. But you seem unable to see that one is a lot worse than the other.

The same applies for Dean's argument that now we are stuck in Iraq and have to stay there. There is a huge moral difference between what Dean would do in Iraq and what Bush has already done. You really think there is no difference between a President that lies to get us into an unnecessary war and a candidate that recognizes that the war was wrong, but is afraid that if we leave Iraq, radical, fundamentalists would form a government and sponsor terrorism against the United States, so therefore does not support leaving Iraq based on that reasoning? I have friends and family from both the right and the left that opposed the Iraq War but firmly believe that we are stuck now and leaving would only make things worse. These are not evil politician people, just intelligent people who aren't libertarians. Dean may or may not be right in arguing that we should stay in Iraq, but it doesn't mean he is hypocritical and it definitely does not make him worse than Bush!

Your arguments against Dean resemble those of the warmongering patriots. They believe that since we are at war, we must always support the President no matter what. Everything is black and white, if you don't support the President you're a traitor. It doesn't matter if you just thoughtfully question the war or you hide Saddam Hussein in your house, you're a traitor and that's the end of it. You're arguments sound just as extreme as you seem unable to distinguish any shades of gray Everything the government does is always wrong. To you, staying in Iraq to help them form a functioning democracy is as equally immoral as fighting a completely unnecessary war that kills thousands of innocent civilians.

Dean wants to restore ties with the international community and bring foreign troops into Iraq, so that American troops can be pulled out and the occupation can be more palatable to the Iraqis. Is that something a true imperialist would want to do? I know you wouldn't agree with that course of action either, but isn't it better than what Bush is doing now, allowing American troops to die and preventing any real international assistance due to US arrogance? We know for sure that we will never get anywhere with Bush's plan. That's why I think it's way too much to say that Dean is the same or worse than Bush. And to say that Bush is better because at least Bush is lying about being in Iraq a long time, while Dean is being honest about it; that's crazy! Dean is living the in the real world. What would have happened if, immediately following the cessation of World War II, Libertarians took over the US government and withdrew all troops from Germany and Japan? The result most likely would be similar to what happened after World War I, when a battered Germany was left to restore its country on its own devices and ended up becoming Nazi Germany, which, most historians agree, was not good. There is no reason the same type of chaos wouldn't occur in Iraq.

There aren't any easy solutions to this Iraq problem and I'm not even trying to convince you that we should stay in Iraq. I just am trying to make you realize that there will be negative consequences to just leaving Iraq (there will be negative consequences no matter what we do), there are convincing arguments for both courses of action, and it's possible for good, intelligent people to disagree.

You don't have to agree with Dean's position, but it's wrong to demonize him simply because he doesn't subscribe to the libertarian mindset. Try to be a bit more open-minded. Usually your columns are much better than this one.

CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 5, 1996

For United States Representative

California, 8th District

JUSTIN RAIMONDO, REPUBLICAN 25,739 votes

Nancy Pelosi, Democrat 175,216 votes

David Smithstein, Natural Law 6,783 votes

and the first few statements of the first comment posted about the article, I have the following to say.

Dean is not the best candidate for the Democrats, to compete in the next presidential election. The mere fact that he supports a forever morally unjustifiable war of criminal agression and therefore the hypocrisies of the G.W. Bush administration, and their behind-the-scenes pals network, he has thereby also acknowledged that he doesn't care about the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights, as well as international law, and human rights in general; either that, or he does not have a responsibly intelligent understanding of the US' constitution and bill of rights, international law, and human rights in general.

Now, that, that alone, disqualifies him as being a potentially good candidate for the Democrats; or, for any other political party.

D. Kucinich (spelling?) is the only potential Democratic candidate that I have my brain waves focused on. He's the only one who has stood firmly right, including prior to March 20, 2003.

Of course him speaking of his first-hand experience with and knowlege of

poverty is a turn-off for many Americans; many ever continuing to live in la la disney fantasy land "dreams" about what is right or wrong, or what is real, versus not or surreal.

That, however, does not morally or rightly disqualify Kucinich, and he is the only one of the potential Democratic candidates to have taken and maintained morally just positions.

Of course, if he did become president of the nation, and maintains his high quality views, then he could be a prime candidate for another presidential assassination. It'd be rather typical of the US of A.

Dean has done gone and entirely disqualified himself as anyone I'd ever entertain the thought of voting for, because he's made it outright obvious that he does not understand law, nor what morality means; and, that's certainly not what people should aim to place as their "king", over them, their children, the poor, and highly abused and rather oppressed US military troops, etc.

Dean may have some personal qualities that others might justly appreciate, but he's done gone and washed himself out of the race for Democratic leadership, imho.

This is the kind of silliness that got us George Bush in the first place. After three years of having your face ground in the mud you still think that Ghandi is going to return and lead us all to the promised land. The point is Dean, or Gore, or even that scumbag Lieberman wouldn't have gotten us into this war in the first place. Remember that when Bush 43, Part II fulfills one of their favorite slogans – "Men want to go to Baghdad, REAL men want to go to Teheran."

Howard is not the candidate of your dreams. OK. But don't be so hard on yourself. The US is supertanker, it doesn't turn in one election, it's nudged along by degrees, we need someone nudging it in the right direction and with the willingness to let us be one part of the voice of his conscience.

">xxx

"I like Dean, he's GREEN

And obviously you are not!

In my first comment reply I said that Dean supported this criminal war of agression against Iraq, as I had inferred from the statement in the article saying that he's for the US troops remaining in Iraq, and possibly from part of the first comment about the article.

I just learned that that was an invalid inference, from "Ways to Win", at

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0813-11.htm

So, Dean is no longer, for myself, in the category I first placed him in, in my first comment, here, and, based on the commondreams.org views post, I would consider him as a valid running candidate for Democratic leadership; although, prefer the principled view more than the pragmatic one, leaving Kucinich as my personal preference. But, if not Kucinich, then Dean seems to be the next best choice; presently anyway.

Unfortunately, there are excellent republicans that I'd support by voting for them, but they're not likely to ever be the ones leading their party; therefore, voting republican is highly unlikely, for me, and an absolutely forbidden idea if G.W. Bush, D. Rumsfeld, ..., represent the republican party leadership in the 2004 elections. They should be impeached immediately and therefore should not be present for the elections next year, but the impeachment process is obstructed by the Justice department, and others, so this team may indeed be present in the next electoral campaign for presidential administration. They should be immediately impeached, put on trial for crimes of war, crimes against human rights of Iraqis, crimes against the US's constitution and bill of rights, crimes against internationaly humanitarian law, ..., and subsequently put in prison for the rest of their earthly lives; therefore, there's definitely no way that they can be morally supported. The only morally just support they deserve is a fair trial.

So, that leaves me with voting for either the Democrats, if either Dean or Kucinich is the leader, or for another party. I'd make a better president than by far most US politicians, but won't vote for myself; certainly not if G.W. Bush and his league of psychopathically sociopathic and insatiably greedy pals aren't all put in prison for the rest of their earthly lives.

For over four decades, now, the US has not had a presidential administration which has done anything measurably good; however, plenty of crime they did commit and/or somehow support. And, the last president who did anything measurably good was assassinated, so ..., the next good president will be wise to keep an eye on his backside. Money does buy assassinations.

I just created and posted a correction to my initial comment, and don't see it among the list of comments for this article; therefore, I'll repost, to see if I perhaps clicked on the wrong button the first time.

My comment saying that Dean is unfit to run for Democratic leadership, and in the next presidential electoral campaign was invalid. I had the impression, from the article saying that Dean supports US troops being maintained in Iraq, that he supported this war of criminal agression, however got a correction from "Ways to Win", at http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0813-11.htm , a view I pretty much agree with, entirely, or nearly so.

As that commondreams view states, Kucinich is the better choice, compared to Dean, but on a principled basis, as opposed to a pragmatic one, in which case Dean may indeed stand a stronger chance of winning a presidential election in 2004. However, I'd nonetheless prefer the principled approach.

If either runs against G.W. Bush, then I don't see how either Kucinish or Dean could justly lose the next presidential election; although, this may be an only idealistic perspective.

But, I don't know or understand why Dean would want to maintain US troops in Iraq, because they're not doing Iraqis any real good, and they're victims of continued attacks. Keeping US troops there would only be acceptable, imo, if the UN was given control over the restoration of Iraq, in which case US troops would not be there as occupation forces, any longer, but for peacekeeping.

If Dean is for both maintaining control of the occupation and keeping US troops there, in Iraq, then I'd be against such an outlook. If he's for handing over control of the restoration of Iraq over to the UN, and supporting the move with US troops serving as peacekeepers, then I'd be for this; although, there should be a replacement plan implemented, to bring back US troops who've been in Iraq for months, who've been promised at least a few times that they'd be returning home, with each promise never honored, and replaced with fresh troops. Then, they could be returned after six months or a year, say, to give their replacements a break, too. Etc.

I posted a correction to a comment I had posted, which contained an invalid statement regarding Dean, however I can't find the correction; although, the webiste says that it's been posted. All I see is my initial comment, which deserves to be accompanied by the correction.

So, for the third attempt, I'll try again, using this post.

My comment saying that Dean is unfit to run for Democratic leadership, and in

the next presidential electoral campaign was invalid. I had the impression,

from the article saying that Dean supports US troops being maintained in Iraq,

that he supported this war of criminal agression, however got a correction

from "Ways to Win", at http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0813-11.htm , a

view I pretty much agree with, entirely, or nearly so.

As that commondreams view states, Kucinich is the better choice, compared to

Dean, but on a principled basis, as opposed to a pragmatic one, in which case

Dean may indeed stand a stronger chance of winning a presidential election in

2004. However, I'd nonetheless prefer the principled approach.

If either runs against G.W. Bush, then I don't see how either Kucinish or Dean

could justly lose the next presidential election; although, this may be an

only idealistic perspective.

But, I don't know or understand why Dean would want to maintain US troops in

Iraq, because they're not doing Iraqis any real good, and they're victims of

continued attacks. Keeping US troops there would only be acceptable, imo, if

the UN was given control over the restoration of Iraq, in which case US troops

would not be there as occupation forces, any longer, but for peacekeeping.

mike

Dean has been portrayed in the media as a left wing savior. Sort of a new Mondale. I believe this is where much of the agression against him stems. In truth, he was for both the first gulf war and the war against the citizens of Afghanistan and he makes no apologies. We need to wake up and stop looking to the Democrats to represent us. Dean may be better than Bush, that vote is a personal choice, but don't be surprised when economic conditions stay the same and we're lead into another unjust war.

watch Dennis tear Bush a new one

no Patriot Act

No NAFTA

No WTO

No GAT

Health Insurance for all that covers ALL

The only interesting thing to do with Dennis Kucinich is to have an office pool on when he drops out.

That's like watching a miniature poodle attempt to savage a Great Dane.

"Tonight, on America's Funniest Politicians..."

"Tonight, on America's Funniest Politicians..."

We have George W. Bush attempting to explain himself on how he's going to improve the economy by : keeping American troops in Iraq at a cost of a billion a week (with not ONE WMD, or Saddam found-no republican can refute that), protecting our borders even BETTER than they were before (when apparently they never were safe), all while giving HUGE tax cuts...(that will go to the wealthiest Americans, many of whom are the major figures in America-of course they're not going to say anything about that)

Stay Tuned for more Hilarious "Presidential" outtakes !

"Tonight, on America's Funniest Politicians..."

We have George W. Bush attempting to explain himself on how he's going to improve the economy by : keeping American troops in Iraq at a cost of a billion a week (with not ONE WMD, or Saddam found-no republican can refute that), protecting our borders even BETTER than they were before (when apparently they never were safe), all while giving HUGE tax cuts...(that will go to the wealthiest Americans, many of whom are the major figures in America-of course they're not going to say anything about that)

Stay Tuned for more Hilarious "Presidential" outtakes !

"America's Funnies Politicians" would be lost on you, as you seem to be totally lacking a sense of humor.

Poor fellah.

Oh, by the way, what did you spend your tax refund on? I put mine back into the economy. No thanks necessary.

Gee...and neither one of us is wealthy or a major figure in America. Imagine that! The tax breaks for the wealthy somehow managed to help out the little guys, too!

I actually believe that there are WMD's in Iraq, so what do I know? Not a whole hell of a lot!

Fido, your piddly little tax refund was a drop in the bucket compared to what is being doled out to the buddies of this criminal misadminstration...your either a fuckin' uninformed loser or a lying shill...or both.

...go back to Simpleton Simon...much more honestly descriptive....

The "You're a Stupid Shill Blues" is pretty worn out.

Don't you have any imagination at all?

And I've never posted as Simple Simon. As hard as it is for you to get your little brain around, there is more than one person who disagrees with you.

You should be used to that.

Hitting a little close to home, Puddin'Head Fido?

And I did not type "Simple", I typed "Simpleton"....dumb shit, you just confirmed it!

If you see a complete denial as confirmation, yeah, I guess I did confirm it.

Nonetheless, I have never posted as Simple Simon OR Simpleton Simon.

You ever heard of "archives", Chicken Boy?

I've spent a lot of time in there. It's called "getting to know your enemy".

Yeah, whatever...now go fetch my slippers, DOGGIE...or it's the paper for you...just like ol' times!

Whatever.

Do you often have fantasies of treating men like dogs?

And have you told your therapist?

What's it like?

Warm and welcome

or rough and rancid?

Now beg. Good boy.

...nah...it's not that Fido...

...it's just that your so damn loyal....

...maybe I'll change my doggies name from Fido to Tony....

I'll tell you.

There is an incredible amount of intolerance and hate. The Left used to be compassionate and caring, concerned with women's rights, gay rights, tolerance and acceptance.

What happened? Now, the Left has its head stuck up the ass of radical Islam, with their view of women as property, homosexuality as a capital offense, and extreme intolerance and unacceptance of viewpoints even slightly different from that approved by the oligarchy.

Further, the Left has baldly accepted and even promoted the last two acceptable prejudices: Jew- and Christian-hatred. If you're a Jew, you're responsible for the genocide of the Palestinians and you want to rule the world, and have indeed come close to it. If you're a Christian, you're an intolerant robot whose religion is responsible for the worst evils committed against mankind.

Politically, the Left has creeped farther and farther leftward, until they hold up socialist toilets like Cuba as the pinnacle of human political evolution, and murderous scum like Castro, Che, and Mumia as courageous fighters for freedom.

Those that are even farther out on the fringe of politics embrace anarchy, blithely ignoring the fact that a large-scale anarchistic society is flatly impossible. They sit around talking about revolution, yet none of them has the slightest idea of how to successfully bring it off. Should any of them actually grow a pair and try to do something about it, they will be promptly wiped out...and rightly so. However, that won't ever be an issue; your basic anarchist is typified by their political prisoner hero, Sherman Austin -- a spoiled, snot-nosed kid, whose dreams of anarchy are borne of a dissatisfaction with his lot in life, an unwillingness to take responsibilty for it, and more than a little of the belief that anarchy is "cool".

IndyMedia brings all this hate, intolerance, and abdication of responsibility together in one handy package. Those who don't immediately fall down and worship at the altar of the Conspiracy Theory, the Zionist Threat, the Hatred of America and of Israel are immediately branded as shills, brain damaged, or part of a PSYOPS campaign, because Higher Power knows that NO ONE could POSSIBLY disagree with the wisdom presented here without there being something terribly wrong with them. Additionally, the epithet "fascist!" is constantly hosed about like Colorado River water on an LA lawn, with little regard to its true meaning -- here, it just means "How DARE you disagree with me!"

Few people here will agree with this assessment....just the conservatives, actually, who come here to argue (not debate; the regulars constantly prove they're not interested in debate) and poke a little fun at unusually humorless people. We are under no illusions that we'll change anyone's opinions here; that's not what we're here for, and, contrary to populat opinion, neither are we here under direction of the evil government.

You folks just absolutely cannot comprehend that someone can look at the same data as you and come up with a different opinion than yours.

The Left has become a hate-filled, self-loathing haven for the disaffected, the disillusioned, and the powerless...and IndyMedia is their unholy church.

very tired

"You folks just absolutely cannot comprehend that someone can look at the same data as you and come up with a different opinion than yours."

well if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black. You're just pissed because we ( I ) don't buy your crap even with a discount.

... you openly admitted it. Both you and dingo. I told you one time that I had read the same "evidence" that you had regarding 9/11 and had reached an entirely different conclusion. I asked both of you if you could acknowledge that differnt people could read the same material and reach different conclusions, and the only response I got back was that I was obviously willing to remain blind, an accusation that can easily be aimed back at you. So, you don't have the capacity to even understand that two people can look at the same "evidence" and reach two entirely different conclusions. Something that simple, and you can't grasp it. So, what gives any of us any reason to believe you have the capacity to read and comprehend anything?

it aint mine.

Same as previous comment.

No one asked you to "buy it", we asked if you could admit it. It's real easy, try it.

Say, "Two people can read the same "evidence" and reach entirely different conclusions." Is it really that hard to say?

We already know you can't admit it. It's been proven time and time again.

Watch out! There's a Communist underneath your bed!

PSYCHO.

Howard Dean is an ADL/AIPAC shill.

DO NOT, REPEAT: DO NOT cast a vote for him for this reason.  A presidential election is a serious matter, and not to be taken lightly.

Dean's rabid support for Israel nullifies any shred of moral decency in his presidential campaign, and exposes his true colors.

F+

http://www.granitestaters.com/guide/dean.html

"In his August 4 CNN appearance, Dean said he would require the FDA to study medical uses of marijuana, which would constitute a major departure from normal FDA drug approval procedures. Moments later, Dean said he thinks "marijuana should be treated like every other drug in the process." In essence, Dean used his standard "we need a study" waffle which, in turn, was devastatingly parodied on Comedy Central's The Daily Show. His confusion of the issue, his earlier reversal and his actions have shown that medical marijuana patients can never trust him."