Howie The Hawk: 'You Can't Stay Out Of These Things'
Call him Howie "The Hawk" Dean . . .
Last evening we detailed Cenk Uygur's hypocrisy in supporting military action in Libya. This morning brings news of another liberal nouveau-hawk: Howard Dean. The man who was a scream away from winning the 2004 Dem presidential nomination based on his opposition to the Iraq war suddenly supports a muscular foreign policy. On Morning Joe, Dean told Joe Klein (who is surprisingly skeptical about President Obama's Libya policy):
"I don't think you stay out of these things. You can't if you're the most powerful country in the world . . . You have to take chances."
View video after the jump.
Watch the video and consider how having a Dem in the White House has apparently turned Howard from dove to hawk.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Howard Dean, what's your response to the president's actions in Libya?
HOWARD DEAN: I think he's done the right thing. It's easy to criticize in hindsight.
And later, clashing with Klein.
DEAN: When somebody comes in and has a revolution you don't get to say, as the United States of America, when they have their elections.
JOE KLEIN: All the more reason for us to stay out of them.
DEAN: I don't think you stay out of these things. You can't if you're the most powerful country in the world . . . You have to take chances.
KLEIN: That's not what you were saying in 2003!
DEAN: That's because we were lied to about what we were doing . . . we were lied to about the WMD.
KLEIN: We had the same situation as we do now, which is insufficent information.
- Mark Finkelstein's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Especially
Submitted by JustAl on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 9:18am.
If the lives you take chances with belong to people you have never, and will never meet. I mean what's the problem. . . the military doesn't vote democrat anyway, so just throw 'em into a meat grinder as a PR stunt to impress the "one world government" crew. Another waste of skin.What an about-face from
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 9:26am.
What an about-face from Dean...from ranting and raving (secondary nature to Dean) about the Iraq war to supporting Obama's little war. Funny thing is I remember Dean warning Bush that he'd better get Congressional approval but is letting Obama slide for bypassing Congress. Howard Dean: what a sleaze!Howard Dean
Submitted by claspur on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 9:41am.
Can't one of his doctor buddies fix that crack in his head? He's someone... one of those people I get away from as soon as possible.And if Bush was President and
Submitted by marpel on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 9:43am.
And if Bush was President and did this???? What do you suspect would happen? OMG, I hate to even think about it."Deep within my heart lies a memory. A song of ol' San Antone..."
"BUSH's THIRD WAR!"...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 10:08am.
...Would probably one headline or "Cowboy Starts Another One!" or "Bush's Third War on Muslims!"Kudos to Joe Klein for being consistant, and not a hypocrite like his fellow Liberals.
If Bush bypassed Congress
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 11:40am.
If Bush bypassed Congress like Obama did I am certain the libs in the media and those radical libs like Code Pink and Media Matters would be rabidly salivating in their attacks on Bush. The word "impeachment" would be repeatedly pounded in the liberal MSM like a New Orleans jazz funeral drum.Dean isn't the only
Submitted by Martin2717 on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 9:50am.
Dean isn't the only hypocritical Democrat these days. How about the current VP? That's if what he said here doesn't apply to his current boss. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dRFJ6CF2Mw&feature=player_embeddedKlein is hedging
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 10:05am.
because embarrassment is setting in. We do not have the same thing now, as there is no Joint Resolution out of Congress prior to military action. Dean can parrot the "lied to" all he wants, he cannot remove the Congressional record itself.
And as for Klein, the very fact that we had incomplete information after a dozen years WAS THE PROBLEM regarding Iraq in 2003. Had he actually paid attention all along, had he actually read, at least, UN resolution 687 all the way through 1441, he would know that.
This is not to tout U.N. approval or authorization, it is to show that even the U.N was forced to admit, over and over again, that Saddam had not complied with 687. Psssssst Klein, that means he had not supplied the information and the actions required of him in exchange for leaving him in power.
So as it pertains to information lacking, Saddam was responsible for that in 2003 regarding Iraq and OBAMA is responsible for it regarding 2011. Same thing? Hardly.
Embarrassment? Try Disarray and Chaos, Ashrak
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 10:13am.
Germany pulled out of NATO this am, the Brits are going hawkish (but are running low on ammo, hmmm, who's going to buy them more?), French are doing their usual (hunting for the white flag), and we are, as always, carrying the weight and the financial burden.
Obama is getting slammed from the left and the right. My bet is he says "nevermind, K-Bye" on Friday at the very latest. He's too big of a wimp to take more than three days of criticism, much less years of it.
Can you spell fiasco? I can.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Now, now, Blonde
Submitted by Model850 on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 12:45pm.
Take it easy on the "big guy." After all he did have to cut short his vaca... I mean, tour of Latin America. By a whole two hours even! It's been rough for him recently. I mean, can't this poor guy ever catch a break?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/03/16/wanda-sykes-has-ob...
What? You mean Obama has an
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 1:01pm.
What? You mean Obama has an early tee-time at the Camp David Putt-Putt course?Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Submitted by Tomorama on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 10:14am.
Some other damn liars:
Again my favorite is William Cohen who as Sec of defense UNDER BILLYBOY, would kind of have a clue maybe????
There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
Please ship all your empty beer bottles to the Pentagon
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 10:23am.
We may need a whole of Molotov Cocktails.
Send in Howie the flame
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 10:51am.
Send in Howie the flame thrower. I'd say let Obama at 'em but he's a dud.For me a big disappointment....
Submitted by Prester John on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 10:54am.
....is Sec Def Gates, along with Hillary (who, being the smartest woman in the world, should've been fighting this operation from the get go--so much for her being president).
With all that was going on without Libya, how strong of a fight did he (along with Adm Mullens) put up for, if nothing else, a vote in Congress? And that's not to mention little things like getting a clarification on exactly what the mission was, who was going to be in command after the initial part of the operation, whether Gadhaffi was a target or not, what the desire end state was etc.
Andd if he didn't get the answers he needed why didn't he, along with Adm Mullen, resign?
A bad performance all the way around.
Delicious
Submitted by Texndoc on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 10:58am.
A loony tune liberal having to say such claptrap about starting a war purely to defend their Urkel has got to have a stomach that looks like a balloon knot.We have to get involved in every fight?
Submitted by lgeubank on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 11:51am.
When you're the most powerful country in the world, Dean says, you have to take sides and jump into every fight anywhere, anytime. I'm sick of that theory already.Obama said we should help out
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 1:04pm.
Obama said we should help out where ever tyrants reign.
So where are we going after Libya? Bahrain? Yemen?
C'mon Obama...I dare ya to say what you mean and mean what you say and BE CONSISTENT ABOUT IT!
Yeah, yeah...I know...only in Fantasyland...
So when is the strike
Submitted by Model850 on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 1:31pm.
Obama said we should help out where ever tyrants reign.
Oh no! You mean he's ordered air strikes on the White House now?!?
On Drudge, Also backing the
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 12:05pm.
On Drudge,
Also backing the rebels -- al Qaeda...
Now, if anyone thinks that Al Qaeda makes an announcement, or statement in support of anything, without being directly involved in the conflict, I have this bridge.....
Intell reports have mentioned this and it is believed by many in the intell community that Al Qaeda is behind most of the "rebel" uprisings in the ME. Notice, those ME countries that observe Sharia law did not incur the wrath of rebellion. In Iran, the Persians simply kill the protesters, and hang some others. Iran is backing Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda is backing rebels. What needs to happen is we need get out of the ME, and if they raise their hands against Israel, we simply wipe them off the map. All at once, or one at a time.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
This isn't a revolution.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 1:00pm.
Dean's not being honest with us, or even himself. He, like so many other people who support Obama in this, keep calling this a revolution, but it is not, it is a civil war.. Th 'rebels' aren't fighting for independence from the Libyan government, like what occurs in a revolution, they're fighting for CONTROL of that government. They're fighting a civil war! Let's call these people what they truly are: insurrectionists. Then, and only then, can we have an informed, meaningful debate on how we should respond.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Invalid comparisons
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 1:39pm.
Also, the Obama supporters continually compare Libya to th Balkan conflicts as if they are similar. But,as we all know, they are not. Bosnia, Kosovo, ect were all true revolutions. They all wanted independence from Serb dominated Czechoslovakia, which they received, thanks to our help. Libya is not like that at all. Once again, it is a battle over who will be in charge. No one is fighting for independence, just for control.
So, please, Democrats, be honest and forthright with us (and yourselves) about what is going on, ok? We deserve an honest, open public debate about what is occurring and what we should be doing about it. Anything less is deceptive. You claim that Bush lied us into war? Well, so did the Obama administration.
Oh, and by the way, that dream of a democratic Libya is nothing more than a pipe dream. There are already several "true" Libyan governments now, and NONE of them were democratically elected. They have all been imposed upon their relevant populations. Where were the elections for an interim government? Where was the chance for people to choose those who will lead the transformation into a democratically elected government, like what happened in both Iraq and Afghanistan? It hasn't happen, and it probably never will. One dictatorship has now been replaced by several, all fighting for control of the country. Is that the "reform" Obama was hoping for? Is this what we're fighting for?
Contrary to the claims of Obama and his supporters, this isn't another Balkan's war, this is another Somalia.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Hawk?
Submitted by Dan Diego on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 8:44pm.
Doesn't this make Dean and Oblahma Chicken-Hawks?. Like all the progressives labeled Cheney.