I think everyone is forgetting something: just because you win a war doesn't mean it was a just war in the first place.

Further, you can express opposition to a war's pretext or premise and support for the troops fighting it at the same time (see - I just did!)
viv acia | Email | Homepage | 03.13.03 - 2:37 pm | #

The current President has the responsibility to make those decisions right now. Once a decision is made, it is made.

We are trying to let people know that Dean will weigh his decisions more carefully (and indeed, honestly) than the present administration has. That is a distinction he can make.

Do y'all understand what I'm saying?
viv acia | Email | Homepage | 03.13.03 - 2:40 pm | #

While I agree with Walsh's overall point, and I agree with Anna's thought that the article treats Dean as a top-tier candidate, I thought Walsh's take on Dean was more than a bit unfair, especially when she describes him as "whining" to the New York Times' Adam Nagourney. How would she know if he was whining? Moreover, I think Dean is right to want to discuss domestic issues as well as war issues. Also, I think Dean would stand up well against Bush in these imaginary elections if he had more exposure. Unfortunately, the press is still hyping John "Lurch" Kerry as the front-runner.
Allan Todd | Email | Homepage | 03.13.03 - 2:44 pm | #

I'm trying to articulate 3 principles:

1. Respect for the sitting President
2. Respect for our armed Forces and the sacrifices they make.
3. The integrity required to differ on an important issue, and the ability to make clear the distinction between what the Dean administration would do when faced with difficult choices and what the Bush administration is doing.
viv acia | Email | Homepage | 03.13.03 - 2:45 pm | #

I would like to believe that in a Dean administration, the reasons for which our troops would ever be placed in harm's way would be much better than this administration's.
viv acia | Email | Homepage | 03.13.03 - 2:49 pm | #

I posted this earlier on the ZonkBoard, but that seems to have disappeared. This article in Today's NYTimes Circuits section discusses the Dean Meetups, especially, in NYC. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/1...its/ 13meet.html
B. Ketcham | Email | Homepage | 03.13.03 - 3:05 pm | #

Ah! Thanks B. Ketcham. I read the Times every day and missed that one.
viv acia | Email | Homepage | 03.13.03 - 3:24 pm | #

viv acia, there IS no sitting President.
chase | Email | Homepage | 03.13.03 - 3:32 pm | #

you folks offer the best feedback. =) this is something i'm torn about. thanks for offering your insights. i hope that dean continues to fight the good fight here.
anna | Email | Homepage | 03.13.03 - 3:37 pm | #

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. " - F. Scott Fitzgerald.

One can, Oppose the war, not respect the current president, as he deserves none and still respect the troops and the sacrifices they make.

In fact, one could easily say that by opposing the war one shows MORE respect for the troops, since that person does not wish to risk their lives on something as trivial as this war against iraq.

Unfortunately, speaking against the war if it is to begin would be the equivalent of political suicide, since the majority of the American public does not seem to be able to function with two thoughts at the same time.
Scott | Email | Homepage | 03.13.03 - 4:10 pm | #

The time to speak out against the war is before it starts. After it starts, speaking out against the war is seen as hoping we will lose the war, even if is technically a policy disagreement. The way to discuss the war when it's happening is to hope for a quick and decisive victory, then talk about the aftermath, the monetary cost, reconstruction, and trying to establish lasting peace.
CA Pol Junkie | Email | Homepage | 03.13.03 - 4:42 pm | #

Y'know Chase, and Scott - I have to agree with you on that one - particularly paragraph 3 of your post Scott.

And that is the point that gets me about the other candidates - falling for the ploy that it is "un-American" to oppose the war, when an equally cogent argument can be made that is is "un-American" to support it.

So they really need to take that off the table and discuss the real issue here: that this is the wrong war anyway.

(By the way - I probably respect the current "President" even less than y'all do - I meant respect for the office and the powers vested in it.)
viv acia | Email | Homepage | 03.13.03 - 7:43 pm | #

Great article B. Ketcham - thanks. Y'all should read it.
viv acia | Email | Homepage | 03.13.03 - 7:50 pm | #

Ah! This is the right posting. (see the NPR comments)

I agree with Allan Todd that Walsh seemed to wash over Dean and simplify his position. But, if this war really is waged for the wrong reasons, shouldn't Dean continue to oppose it and won't he come out as the only true candidate to 1) defy the president by arguing the validity of the war, which no one else has done, and 2) end up as the front-running Democrat once we feel the repercussions of this misguided war? It could be viewed simply as political suicide, but it may be the opportunity Dean needs to get in the lead.

If the war is a flagrant success and we see happy Iraqis praising the US and GWB, blah blah, the whole thing works just like the perfect plan the the Bushies think it will be, won't any Dem, no matter who wins the nomination, be screwed when the election rolls around? Bush Jr isn't going to lose that momentum like his daddy did. So, it seems to me that Dean has to speak out against the war throughout it's duration. And he's intelligent and articulate enough to pull it off without sounding like he's "unpatriotic".

Pete | Email | Homepage | 03.13.03 - 10:34 pm | #

I think we are at such a sad point in American history, when in a supposed democracy, one cannot freely express a dissenting view of Bush policy without fear of being branded and cowered as "un-American" or "un-patriotic". When did such a calamity creep up on us? Since Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other misfits!

I for one, am quite relieved to know that there is still someone (at least one) who is not afraid to hold his ground on his convictions, without wavering apologetically like a scared chicken whenever his position is challenged, or changes with the direction of the prevailing political wind at any given time. That person is Howard Dean. Decent, honest, consistent.

The current crop of dem presidential candidates ( with a few notable exceptions) are for the most part - "yes" men, with too much connection to inner beltway politics. Howard Dean is a refreshing breath of fresh air. Now if we can only live out the shrub's term 'til November '04.
gerry | Email | Homepage | 03.14.03 - 11:50 am | #