Who was right on Iraq? Dean or Kerry?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Here are excerpts from foreign policy speeches given early in the year, before the Iraq war, giving their positions on that war. Who was right?

But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.
--John Kerry Jan. 23, 2003
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html


In short, America may have to go to war with Iraq, but we should not rush into war - especially without broad international support.

Now, I am not among those who say that America should never use its armed forces unilaterally. In some circumstances, we have no choice. In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred.

However, that case has not been made, and I believe we should continue the hard work of diplomacy and inspection.

We should work with the Security Council to push the UN inspection process as hard as possible, as fast as possible, and with as much help as possible from our intelligence assets. We should continue as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmament and the inspectors tell us credibly that there is promising work to be done. We should have the inspectors report back every 30 or 60 days, so that we can assess whether to continue on course or take tougher action.

If particular weapons of mass destruction are discovered, by the inspectors or otherwise, they must be destroyed immediately, by the inspectors or by the Iraqi government. If they are not, their destruction should be accomplished by military action under the UN. I believe that every member of the Security Council would support such an approach.
--Howard Dean Feb. 17 2003
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html

[Kolesar]

1. if you keeping picking at that scab, it will never heal ... eom

[Ninga]

6. My heart belongs to Howard, my vote to Kerry.

My scab has healed, but left a scar.

Americans deserve to have Howard Dean hold a position that will allow him to oversee policy for the good of this county.

It's in Kerry's hands.

[DemBones DemBones]

2. KUCINICH!!! But SpikeTrees is right -- let it heal.

Kerry may not be all we want in a candidate but he's ours and we must support him. To do otherwise means Four More Years and Four More Wars.

[noahmijo]

3. They're BOTH right

I agree with both viewpoints.

There.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

5. Dean is better than Kerry, Kerry is better than Bush

and Dean isn't on the ballot, so I'm very gladly supporting and voting for Kerry.

[Downtown Hound]

7. Dean was right on Iraq

And he will always my my eternal respect and admiration for having the courage to stand up the way he did and start giving the Democrats a backbone. I was so close to closing the book on the party forever when they went through that incredible wimp phase where they handed the squatter in chief whatever he wanted. But along came Dean and saved the day! Thank you Doctor!

However, I'm actually glad Kerry's our candidate, because I think he has a better economic policy than Dean. Dean is actually quite conservative on fiscal matters, and much as I hate the fact that military experience is an issue in this campaign when Bush is a god damn deserter, I'm glad we have someone that can play that card and trump Bush's phony tough-guy image. Kerry may have made the wrong choice on Iraq and the Patriot Act, but everything else I've seen of the guy makes me very excited.

[Kolesar]

24. wow...great post...eom

[Sugarbleus]

26. Dean.....................n/t

[jpgray]

8. Dean had a better position on Iraq than Kerry

One might say his position as a candidate and not a congressman helped, but the fact remains his stance was better. And Dean was absolutely right (taken at face value) in his statement above.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

9. Dean

but I'm voting for Kerry.

[TeacherCreature]

10. Dean

[onecitizen]

11. Dean............

I still do not like Kerry's stand on it.....or Edwards. BUT any of them better than bush!

I still LOVE HOWARD DEAN!:loveya:

[Protected]

12. Clark

;)

[Larkspur]

13. Dean, of course,

If Dean hadn't smacked the Dem Establishment in March 2003, the Dems would definitely be heading for extinction this election.

Dean's stance on Iraq and military use in general was superior to Kerry's. This difference is that I'd trust Dean more to do what is right for this country than kerry, who'll be continually trying to do what it takes to get himself re-elected, should he win the WH, than what is right for this country. Kerry is the kind of politician the average American despises. Dean's strong stance on issues, rebuking of Bush and the Dem Establishment, and his fiscal responsibility appealed to moderate Republicans and Independents in my corner of New England.

[LWolf]

14. Neither. n/t

[Anwen]

15. Dean.

[SixShooter]

16. Dean....BUT

JOHN F. KERRY IS MY MAN! :bounce:

[blm]

17. Their stance was basically the same. Dean was FOR the Biden-Lugar version

of the IWR which included all the same steps that IWR did except it included a letter of intent to use military force going to Speaker and Pre pro tem of the Senate first. Bush, instead, sent Congress the letter two days after.

The differences were exaggerated by the media and by the candidates and their supporters.

[MattNC]

28. glad someone else realizes that n/t

[killbotfactory]

78. And Kerry backed down while Dean didn't

Sorry, you can't hold Kerry's stated position, let Bush fuck everything up and invade, and then say you support Bush's decision to invade, like Kerry did.

Of course, he said it while the war was still shiny and new and smelled like roses.

[mzmolly]

103. Right.

No amount of contortion changes the fact that these men disagreed on the war.

Kerry had it right in the beginning, but he was wrong to vote for the war, inspite of his stated reservations. And as you pointed out he was also wrong to support it when it began.

I didn't support Kerry initially , but I do today.

As for me, I'm "In An Arranged Marriage With Kerry, Still In Love With Dean."

Yes, I have been shilling for JK and will continue to do so, but I'll never forget that guy who spoke for me when few else dared to do the same.

[blm]

117. The day you can prove that Biden-Lugar was the antiwar position is the

day I'll accept that Dean and Kerry had different positions.

BTW...Dean cited the need to disarm Saddam of WMDs in his statement released the day the war started, March 17.

Kerry wasn't the only one nuancing his position back then, but he was usually the only one getting attacked for it.

[mzmolly]

120. The day you can prove that Biden-Lugar = The Iraq War Resolution

is the day I'll accept Dean and Kerry had the same position on Iraq.

I am fully aware of Dean's position on the War.

"THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT MADE THE CASE FOR WAR." ~ Howard Dean

Now tell me why were rehashing this again?

[blm]

126. I always said there was no substantive difference

to make one the antiwar position and the other prowar as so many Dean supporters assumed. There was a SMALL indsignificant difference in the timing of the letter to Congress, but NOTHING that made it more difficult for Bush than the guidelines of the IWR. I would never CLAIM the two bills were EXACTLY the same and I never did.

Most of the media never even KNEW or never reported that Dean said at the time he would have voted for Biden-Lugar.

[mzmolly]

129. Dean never claimed to be anti-war, he claimed Bush never made the

case for THIS war. Kerry and Edwards both claimed Powell's testimony before the UN was "Powerfull" and "Compelling." Dean said "I'm not convinced." Can you see where they differed?

I haven't heard Kerry say Bush never made the case for war. I've heard him say 'he rushed the war' or 'did'nt have international help' with the illegal invasion, but never heard/saw a clear 'Anti-Iraq War' statement from him. Can you provide a quote from Mr. Kerry to the effect that he opposed the war itself, not simply the manner in which it happened?

Further, would Kerry go on record as saying he and Dean agreed on everything that is "The Iraq War"?

Regarding your interpretation of the lack of a substantive difference between B/L and the rez that passed, I have an opinion of my own. It just so happens that the ACLU and many other progressive groups agree with me. Perhaps most importantly George Bush thought there was a substantive difference when he plead with our leaders not to support B/L because it would "tie his hands."

I was fully aware of Deans support for Biden-Lugar. It's one of the reasons I supported him. I found out he supported it in the "media."

Now get on that quote where Kerry says he was opposed to the war. ;)

[blm]

131. Bush wasn't sincere when he said that, he just wanted the show on the road

and he didn't want further debate. B-L did NOTHING substantively more than IWR to prevent the road to war. Nothing. It was NOT the antiwar position.

The media pushed Dean as the antiwar candidate and many believed them and Dean was a smart enough politician in a PRIMARY battle to use the perception to his advantage.

Especially since their past histories showed that Kerry was the traditionally antiwar lawmaker, while Dean was more approving of aggression even those illegal actions such as Reagan and Bush's covert wars in Central America.

Dean was also approving of Bush's military decisions in Afghanistan, publicly siding with Bush over Kerry on MTP in July 2002 when Kerry had been nailing Bush for months on his incompetence. Dean said Bush was successful at Tora Bora. This was a CLUTCH issue at the time, and Dems backing Bush helped keep Bush's poll numbers and press positive while attempting to marginalize Kerry's positions. That aspect also enabled Bush to have an easier time in his march to war in Iraq since it fostered the perception that he was a competent commander-in-chief. Some of us remember that very clearly.


Sorry I cannot see Dean through the same rosy glasses as many here. I think he is a very good politician who has the potential to be very dynamic at times. He is no more honest and forthcoming than any of the other very good politicians. It's his talent to make it seem as if he is. I know talent. Dean has talent.

[mzmolly]

132. Riiight.

Biden-Lugar was in fact different, and would have tied Bush's hands which is why Kerry chewed out Gephard for NOT supporting it. Kerry prefered B/L with very good reason. However, Kerry is our nominee, so I question the reasoning of digging this stuff up again.

Still waiting for that quote BLM. :hi:

[blm]

133. I'm not crazy about rehashing this stuff, but

the Biden-Lugar bill was written slightly better than IWR so it was the better bill. But all of the KEY ingredients were the same. Point out where B-L would have tied Bush's hands in anyway differently than IWR. Just because Biush said it doesn't make it true. Political analysts of both bills recognize they are basically the same bill with very slight differences.

All I am focusing on is the positions of B-L and IWR. That's the crux of it for me. No one has YET ever proven B-L to be the antiwar position. The press was not focused on Howard Dean at the time and most were unaware of his actual support for that version. Since B-L was not the antiwar position and Dean is on record as saying he was FOR the B-L version of the IWR, then those particular Dean supporters who still claim he was antiwar from the beginning are incorrect.

How many times did Kerry say publicly to Bush, "Do not rush to war"....how many? Surely you don't need me to go dig up a quote for you to joggle your memory. He even wrote an oped in the NYT in Sept.2002 about it and consistently held that view through today. You heard it many times. You may just not have HEARD it. Isn't that the reason for your other thread?

[mzmolly]

134. Again, no one has claimed Dean was "anti-war" from the beginning.

At least I have never seen it. Dean has said he would support the war under certain circumstances. Said circumstances never came to fruition.

Dean didn't believe the pResident made the case for war, nor did I, which is why I supported him.

As for B/L, it would have limited the mission, I know that, Kerry knows it, Bush knows it.

I have to leave this conversation now as it's futile.

But, Kerry is the nominee and he has my support.

I know Kerry/Dean differed on the war, 90% of the population knows it, and I am certain even John Kerry would state as much.

Cheers.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

152. You are right about Dean's Iraq position, but

wrong about people's perceptions of it.

Many, many people, including many people on DU and many people in this thread, continue to believe, in spite of the facts, that Dean was an anti-war candidate who voiced unqualified opposition to the Iraq war.

[killbotfactory]

161. name them

[Feanorcurufinwe]

165. Why?

Why are you asking me to 'call out' other DU members? As far as I know, that is not allowed under DU rules, also, I don't know what purpose it would serve.



Are you trying to dispute the truth of my statement?:

Many, many people, including many people on DU and many people in this thread, continue to believe, in spite of the facts, that Dean was an anti-war candidate who voiced unqualified opposition to the Iraq war.



Do you think that is true, or untrue?

[killbotfactory]

166. I think it's untrue

I don't know any Dean supporter who thought Dean would never use force against Iraq under any circumstances.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

174. No wonder you are so wrong.

If you are unwilling to actually read and attempt to understand oppposing viewpoints, you will never learn anything.


Take our little exchange for example.

I said:

Many, many people, including many people on DU and many people in this thread, continue to believe, in spite of the facts, that Dean was an anti-war candidate who voiced unqualified opposition to the Iraq war.

You replied:
I don't know any Dean supporter who thought Dean would never use force against Iraq under any circumstances.

But of course, I didn't say ANYTHING remotely resembling Dean supporters thought Dean would never use force against Iraq under any circumstances. So you are telling me that what I said is not true, and justifying that statement with something I never said and never implied.

[killbotfactory]

175. "Unqualified opposition"

What the fuck do you think that means?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

181. lol

"Unqualified opposition" means opposition that does not include qualifying statements.


What is this, an English lesson? :wtf:

[killbotfactory]

234. You don't seem to care about english

No serious candidate would be opposed to war with Iraq no matter what. There would always be circumstances where a war would be justified. For Dean, the war wasn't justified. For Kerry, it was.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

250. That's what 'unqualified opposition' means.

It doesn't mean unreasoning, inflexible opposition. It means opposition voiced without qualifiers.

For example a statement of unqualified opposition to the Iraq war would be saying you had been:
"opposed to the Iraq war"

a statement of qualified opposition would be saying you had been:
"opposed to the Iraq war absent an immenent threat"

and a statement of qualified support would be saying you had:
"never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."






If you don't understand the terms being used in the debate, you are going to have a hard time holding up your side of the arguement.

[mzmolly]

197. He did voice his opposition. Qualified opposition as it were. See here:

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Transcript_of_Foreign_Policy_Speech_at_Drake-Feb17_2003.htm

I never meant to imply that Dean wasn't anti-Iraq war (before the war) I mean to imply that Dean is not a pacifist.

His position on the war was A VERY SENSIBLE position as you'll note reading the following speech:

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Transcript_of_Foreign_Policy_Speech_at_Drake-Feb17_2003.htm

There is nothing here that is ambiguous at all. Dean opposed the war P-E-R-I-O-D BEFORE THE WAR STARTED.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

198. Yes, Dean and Kerry both opposed the rush to war.

Both believed Saddam had WMDs, as has been demonstrated. Both stated that they believed Saddam had to be disarmed, as has been demonstrated. Both voiced support for unilateral military action by the US, under the right circumstances, as has been demonstrated. Both stated that Bush did not make the case for war, as has been demonstrated.


Dean opposed the war P-E-R-I-O-D BEFORE THE WAR STARTED.

Untrue, and not supported by the citation you provided. If you take out the 'P-E-R-I-O-D' it is true, however.

[mzmolly]

200. Dean didn't oppose "The Rush to War" he opposed "The War."

Read the speech.

Sure Kerry and Dean agreed ON SOME THINGS REGARDING IRAQ, so did Kerry and Kucinich. But Dean and Kerry also differed on some things (which is conveniently overlooked as Kerry revisionists who continue to twist the facts.)

That's ok though, it only proves you now acknowlege Dean was right on the war.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

201. That's simply not true.

Yes, I've read the speech. In fact it is the same speech I quoted in my original post.




There does not exist any statement from Howard Dean prior to the Iraq invasion that states the categorical and unqualified opposition to the war that you are referring to.


If it exists, quote it. Show it to us. Stop just asserting that it exists.



Dean:Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable,
but unavoidable, choice.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html


Dean:"In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred."
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html


Dean:"never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000395.html

[mzmolly]

202. It certainly is true. Helen Thomas appears to think so also.

"And I firmly believe that the President is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time, when our energy and our resources should be marshaled for the greatest threats we face. Yes, Saddam Hussein is evil. But Osama bin Laden is also evil, and he has attacked the United States, and he is preparing now to attack us again.

What happened to the war against al Qaeda?

Why has this Administration taken us so far off track?

I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America's security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the other nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein."

WTF is unclear about this?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

203. There is no such Howard Dean quote. If it exists show it.

There does not exist any statement from Howard Dean prior to the Iraq invasion that states the categorical and unqualified opposition to the war that you are referring to.


If it exists, quote it. Show it to us. Stop just asserting that it exists.



WTF is unclear about this?

What is unclear is why you keep asserting that Howard Dean said something that he never said.


If it happened, show it. Provide the quote.




I am not trying to say that Dean supported the invasion or the war. That would be as big a lie as saying that Kerry supported the invasion or the war.

[mzmolly]

204. The quote above is one of many that are quite clear.

:hi:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

206. What quote ? The one you are pretending exists?

If it exists show it. Reference it. Quote it.


I don't get it. I keep asking you to provide this phantom quote so we can discuss whether it actually says what you claim it does, and you keep pretending not to hear me.


:wtf:























Here's a quote for you:

mzmolly:

Again, no one has claimed Dean was "anti-war" from the beginning.

At least I have never seen it. Dean has said he would support the war under certain circumstances. Said circumstances never came to fruition.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2011511&mesg_id=2018194&page=

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Now you seem to be saying Dean was "anti-war" from the begining.... which is it?

[mzmolly]

211. Anti war is different than being opposed to a specific War.

For example, Kucinich was anti-war because he never gave a scenario in which he would support defending the US against Saddam Hussein.

Dean is not a pacifist, but he was opposed to the Iraq war prior to the invasion.

Read the last part of my statement:

Allow me to rephrase. Dean answered many hypotheticals such as if Saddam had X or if Saddam did X, I would support X. ie. Dean would have supported the war under certain conditions, those conditions were never met.

Read were I said the following:

"Said circumstances never came to fruition." Thus he didn't support the invasion. It's not as complicated as your pretending.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

212. So still no quote

Your boast:

Never the less, I doubt anyone can find ONE quote by Kerry that says "I did not/do not support the War in Iraq."

I am certain we can find MANY quotes from Dean to this effect.



Here it is the next day and still no quote from Dean to that effect. Plenty that spell out his position, and the circumstances under which he would support military action, and the reasons he did not believe Bush had made the case for it -- just like Kerry. But not one single that says before the war "I do not support the War in Iraq." nor any other similarly unqualified statement.

[mzmolly]

213. No saying it's "The wrong war" is actually a postion of support.

:eyes:

I'm tempted to start a poll and see if people agree that the quote I provided you is clear or not? As I told you privately Dean's website is no longer storing his many speeches, or I'd have a shit load of quotes for you. I do think the one I provided is sufficient.

What I want to know . . . is why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is supporting the President's unilateral attack on Iraq? Feb 2003

Tell me is this another statement of support for the war, before the war?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

216. Still no quote.

It must be frustrating, you keep quoting the original speech from my first post as if it proves me wrong. In fact you are merely making my point -- both Kerry and Dean believed there were WMDs, supported the idea of disarming Iraq, and supported the principle of unilateral military action in the case of a military threat. Both stated that Bush did not make the case for military action.


Any attempt to pretend that I am saying Dean supported the war is simply a dishonest red herring.


Your boast:

Never the less, I doubt anyone can find ONE quote by Kerry that says "I did not/do not support the War in Iraq."

I am certain we can find MANY quotes from Dean to this effect.

And you have not provided a single one. They don't exist because Dean is too savvy and slick of a politician to have made such a statement prior to the war.

[mzmolly]

217. Still lying.

It doesn't behoove you.

Is it time to start that poll?

Here's a quote for you:

"on March 19, 2003, the day the war started: "I think Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him."~ John Kerry

Contrast that to:

"What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President's unilateral intervention in Iraq? ~ Howard Dean March 15, 2003

And ...

"Bush has not made the case for war." ~ Howard Dean over and over again, including Feb 2003 as noted above.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A19692-2004Apr17

Now let sleeping dogs lie FFC. Your making it hard to support Kerry all over again.

Wadda ya say we stop playing this game and let this bullshit thread die? Deal?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

220. You have failed to provide such a quote?

Wadda ya say we stop playing this game and let this bullshit thread die? Deal?


LOL - you are welcome to stop posting anytime you want. But you still haven't provided the quote you said would be so easy to find.

[mzmolly]

223. Your still lying.

How long should we play?

On second thought, nevermind, I'm going to bed. :hi:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

225. The reality is

That both Dean and Kerry believed Saddam had WMDs. Both Dean and Kerry made the argument that the real enemy was al-Qaeda. Both Dean and Kerry supported the principle of unilateral action if the US was faced with an imminent threat and that Bush did not make the case that Iraq was an imminent threat.


If you want to believe that Dean was more 'pure' in his opposition - fine. That is an emotional viewpoint and and opinion and you are welcome to it. But you have failed to demonstrate any substantive policy difference between Dean and Kerry on the issue.

[mzmolly]

240. The reality is Dean said Bush never made the case for war.

The reality is Kerry said he supported the war after he said some of the things above. Kerry said Bush "rushed" the illegal invasion. Sorry, FFC that's not oppposition to the war, that's opposition to the timing.

Kerry supported the war, he voted for it.

I know it, DU-ers know it, the press knows it.

Thus your reality is questionable.

"It was the right vote, but the president did it in the wrong way and is still doing it in the wrong way," said Kerry, who was repeatedly pressed by "Hardball" host Chris Matthews to "sharpen his position."

Matthews, who last week hosted North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who is for the war, said the other Democratic candidates, such as Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a vociferous critic of the war, are clearer on where they stand. But Kerry insisted that his position, while nuanced, was also clear. "I have to tell you, sometimes in foreign policy, certain things are complicated," said Kerry, as Matthews continued to push for a yes or no answer.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/08-oneonone2.html

Kerry did not question THE WAR after he voted for it in October of 2002. He questioned THE MANNER in which the illegal war was carried out. Kerry waffled, again.

Your best letting this sleeping dog lie FFC. Don't rehash his wishy washy stance on the war, it doesn't bode well for the senator, who (for the record) I am now supporting.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

242. Why do you keep pretending that point is in dispute?

[blm]

243. Minor differences, no SUBSTANTIVE ones

just like there was no SUBSTANTIVE difference between B/L and IWR. If there was anything in B/L that would have prevented war different from the IWR then it would be easy to explain, wouldn't it?

[mountainvue]

228. Now get on that quote where Kerry says he was opposed to the war. ;)

Okay:
http://www.seanrobins.com/kerry/kerry_senate_2002_10_09.htm

John F. Kerry
Senate Floor Speech
Authorization of the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
October 9, 2002

..."but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances."

[killbotfactory]

247. ...

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=5901

"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause. We're in this together. We want to complete the mission while safeguarding our troops, avoiding innocent civilian casualties, disarming Saddam Hussein and engaging the community of nations to rebuild Iraq."

[blm]

116. Your over-simplification may suit you, but

I'll stick to trusting my comprehension.

[WLKjr]

18. What a no brainer...DEAN!

and he kept on track through thick and thin and got hammered for it. Now look at the situation today, he was right and continues to be right.

[KittyWampus]

19. Neither. Look Up Clark's Testimony To Congress

He was the counterpoint to Perle.

[sandnsea]

40. Another fat joke

Clark's recommendation to Congress was a resolution to force the UN to put inspectors back into Iraq. Clark's view on Iraq was exactly the same as Kerry's and Dean's. That is, if you read CLARK'S testimony instead of quoting Perle's talking points as some bizarrre rationale of Clark's supposed "anti-war" position.

[JHBowden]

20. Dean

While many Democrats, cowering fear, repeated the talking point that we are much safer with Saddam Hussein removed, Dean correctly assessed the situation.

[Pastiche423]

21. Dean

[newsguyatl]

22. dean

[DFLforever]

23. Dean.

[Individualist]

25. Dean

n/t

[swag]

27. I am very happy that your man Dean was right on Iraq

Many of us were.

KERRY/EDWARDS 2004!

[nomaco-10]

29. Governor Howard Dean MD. We knew it then and.....

most of us still know it now, atleast those of us that recognized he was one of three authentic and principled candidates way back during those pesky, but oh so important primaries.

Very curious that so many people are posting here lately about Howard at this point in time. Could it be "electability" remorse?

[mzmolly]

115. Makes ya wonder.

Could it be "electability" remorse?:(

:hi: Hope all is well Nomaco.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

231. Could it be that Howard Dean and John Kerry are telling the truth?

Go ahead, ask Howard Dean what the substantive differences between his Iraq position and Kerry's are. I think you know as well as I do that he would describe them as virtually identical.



Could it be "electability" remorse?

I don't even have any idea what that is supposed to mean. Now that it actually looks more likely than not that Kerry will indeed beat Bush, why would I, someone who wanted Kerry to run back in 2000, be feeling remorse? I don't get it.

[bklyncowgirl]

30. Dean was right

I think that both candidates--giving what we knew (or thought we knew) at the time were correct in these statesments--and essentially on the same page.

The difference was that Kerry, as a member of the Senate had to vote on the issue. I personally think that he weighed the consequences, both policy wise (what if they're right and there are WMDs) and the political issues (I'm screwed if I vote against this and it turns out to be a cakewalk) and made his choice. I also think he miscalculated both the competency and the nature of the Bush administration.

Dean on the other hand didn't have to vote. He could say he supported "Biden Luger" which while it didn't make a huge difference also didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by the administration. I think that Dean understood the nature of the Bush administration alot better than Kerry did, in that given a free hand to go to war, Bush would indeed do just that.

Bottom line is, imagine that the administration had handled the aftermath to the war better, cracked down on the looting, restored civil authority in Iraq and avoided the quagmire situation that we find ourselves in now, Kerry would come out looking a hell of alot smarter than he does now and Iraq would not be the issue that it is today.

Like the man said "Did I think they'd fuck it up so bad?"

Kerry's my candidate. I can see he saw the dangers of invading Iraq. He made a mistake in voting for the war but I can forgive him that vote.

[NashVegas]

31. Dean

..

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. Wow, all those one word answers.

Makes me wonder if you folks read the speeches I quoted, since they both express the same position...

[CTLawGuy]

33. actions are different though

Dean spoke out against the war and was tagged as an ultra liberal, while Kerry voted for it (consequently not being tagged with that label) and didn't start really criticizing it until it started going badly.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. Right, Dean had no vote in Congress so he was free to fudge the issue.

And he did so masterfully, like the career politician he is. But the reality is, when you look at the substantive statements, like the speeches I quoted, you see that Kerry and Dean shared the same position on Iraq all along.

[CTLawGuy]

36. haha

you gotta be kidding me. He must be a HORRIBLE fudger, because he got pegged as an ultra-leftist anti-war Liberal in the media.

Isn't the point of fudging something like this to AVOID the liberal label?

Now the masterful fudger is Kerry, who votes for the war, claims he is voting for something completely different, makes a speech or two to provide himself cover with the base, waits till the war is going badly, then starts to speak out against it.

[sandnsea]

39. Because he fudged his view on the war

Said he was against the war from the beginning when clearly his view was the same as other Democrats who voted yes on the IWR. Trippi came on board and they concocted the run from the left strategy. He thought he could win with the "leftist base". We keep trying to tell Deanie's that supposed base wasn't big enough to win the primaries, let alone the entire election. Dean made a political miscalculation changing his war position and he made a political miscalculation on presuming the power of the "leftist base". That's what happened.

I think we've already been through your distortions on Kerry. Like I said, still swooning over Dean.

[CTLawGuy]

44. I hate revisionist historians

Dean has never supported the IWR. I challenge you to find me a statement where he said he would have voted YES on that resolution.
I don't want to hear where he said he would disarm Saddam Hussein. If they actually found weapons there, of course Dean would want to get rid of them. But nowhere does Dean say that the president had made the case for unilateral invasion and occupation.


I also challenge you to refute the assertion that Kerry voted for a resolution that gave Bush war-making powers whenever he felt he needed to use them. I don't want to hear what Kerry THOUGHT he was voting for.

their "view" on what SHOULD be done might be similar (I don't believe Kerry would have taken us to war), but their actions and reactions are very different. Kerry enabled Bush, Dean took political risk to criticize a popular but wrong war.

[sandnsea]

58. B-L, war power whenever he wanted them

That's what Dean supported, same result. Dean said he would have voted for a resolution that would have ended in the exact same war.

Disarming Saddam means more than just finding weapons and deciding to go to war to get them out of Saddam's hands. It means an entire process that Saddam must comply with. It includes unfettered access for inspectors. If Saddam didn't comply with that, Dean was prepared to go to war in 60 days, with or without evidence of imminent threat. That's what he said about disarming Saddam.

[CTLawGuy]

70. everything dean said about disarmament

is based on the assumption that Saddam HAS WMD. He later said Bush made no case for any WMD or threat, even though Dean personally thought Saddam probably had WMD.

Under BL, if Bush goes to war for any reason other than getting rid of WMD, he violates the law. Under IWR, he can go for any reason he wants.

[sandnsea]

94. Just not true

It's not true of the IWR at all. It specifically stated threat to the US or enforce UN resolutions. It just didn't specifically state the WMD resolutions, only difference. Since Bush based the invasion on WMD anyway, he'd have done the same thing under B-L.

Dean would have supported a resolution that would have ended in war. Then where would you be?

[CTLawGuy]

145. then when he didn't find WMD

he would have had a lot of explaining to do under BL. Also, it would have been harder for him to justify overthrowing the government.

Under IWR he was able to switch rationales from WMD to "liberation" like that!

[Selwynn]

43. All he needed to do is say "hi" to get pegged ultra left by the media

He wasn't pegged "Ultra left" becuase if his stances. He was pegged ultra left because he was an outsider, and therefore the powers that be wanted him stopped - it had no basis in any fact. And the poster is right, had Dean been in congress, I imagine he would have looked a lot like Kerry did. Why? Because you can see here that in reality their statements on the war are almost indistinguishable. Dean made nice safe statements like that too, as seen above, didn't have to vote on the IWR, then when things started going bad started speaking out more vocally as part of his end game campaign.

[CTLawGuy]

45. umm no

he criticized the war starting on or before March 16, 2003 at the CA Dem convention. The war was EXTREMELY popular then, and in no way was going badly.

Those cherry-picked statement might be the same, but when it came down to it, Kerry enabled Bush and Dean fought against Bush the best way he could, by speaking.

[Selwynn]

139. Um yes.

He did exactly what I said - made statements like the ones quoted prior to the war, then didn't have to take a stand with the IWR cause he didn't have to vote, then began to speak out on it. You're statement that the war was in no way going badly is an interesting and selective revision of history. The war never went well from day one. Almost immediately there was strong concern that our number of forces was insufficient and that our battle plan was weak. Anyone with a brain could see that it was doomed to trouble.

When it really comes right down to it, Kerry and Dean are not much different, except that Dean somehow hoodwinks liberals into thinking he is one when he isn't, and Kerry doesn't pretend to be one.

[CTLawGuy]

147. what are you talking about?

we won in like two-three weeks, correct? We actually THOUGHT there'd be more resistance at Baghdad; we did not think resistance would fall as easily as it did.

Moreover, the war was EXTREMELY popular up until very recently, not necessarily among Dem primary voters, but among people as a whole.

Also I thought Kerry was the "most liberal candidate in a decade?" :eyes: You're saying he doesn't pretend to be a liberal.


Dean supporters know he's not a liberal, he has never claimed to be, but liberal Dean supporters like him because he is willing to listen to them and fight for what they believe, which is something they havent gotten in a while.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. Look, my point is to highlight the similarity of their views,

not to engage in a divisive flame war, which is where you appear to be headed.


Again, to get back to the point, if you look at what they said, when they were saying it at length, and not trying to repeat a soundbite or score a zinger, you see that they held essentially the same view.



And this is in Feb., before the US invaded, not after 'the war is going badly' as you dishonestly claim.

[CTLawGuy]

47. Kerry sure shut up about it

after the war started, until it started going badly.

I know Kerry made speeches telling bush not to use the war powers Kerry just voted to give him (I still can't figure that one out). It is Kerry's action of voting to give Bush the power that bothers me.

It is not logical. If you dont want someone to go to war, why make it easier for him to do just that?

I know Dean wasn't in Congress, but he made it clear how he stood. He stood in favor of getting rid of WMD, should any be found, even if that took unilateral war, but he wasnt in favor of giving war powers to Bush without a solid case of WMD, and a necessity for war. Kerry apologists and revisionists try to twist Dean's pro-disarmament statement into tacit support for the war, while taking Kerry's statements of reservation (while ignoring his inconsistent vote) as solid opposition to the war.

[sandnsea]

48. That's just not true

Kerry spoke out against Bush's rush to war before Dean did, Kerry spoke in Jan 2003. Kerry made his regime change comment April 7 2003.

Dean supported Biden-Lugar which was essentially the same as the IWR that was passed. The differences Dean tries to create just didn't exist. Kind of like people who think Nader is supporting pulling troops out of Iraq. If you actually read what he has on his web site, that's bullshit too.

This is not a black/white issue. Nobody is saying Dean supported going to war in March when Bush chose to. I don't know why Dean people insist on saying Kerry did support it, when he clearly didn't.

They had the exact same view and that's just the truth of the matter.

[CTLawGuy]

49. Im glad Kerry spoke in Jan 2003

but why did he vote to enable Bush to make war?
He sure didn't keep up the criticism much after that until much later.

If B-L and IWR are the same, then why was Bush against B-L and for IWR? Why would he care? It's because B-L tied his hands..

------------------
Bush: Don't Tie My Hands
President Bush announced that the bipartisan Biden-Lugar resolution is too restrictive, and is even weaker than the original 1998 congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq. He warned Congress to not "tie my hands."

-------------------
http://onepeople.org/archives/000102.html

This refers to a NYT story that I can't access.


Bush wanted IWR because it gave him absolute power, he hated B-L because it was a responsible check.

[sandnsea]

51. Bush would have ignored B-L

He would have twisted it on its head and told the exact same lies he did with the resolution that passed. The result would have been the same, war. Would you then say Dean voted for the war if Bush had lied about B-L the way he did IWR?

B-L focused more specifically on WMD leaving no option for humanitarian intervention. In the end, Bush chose the WMD route anyway and lied about it all, just like he would have with B-L.

[CTLawGuy]

62. IWR

gave him nearly absolute power to invade Iraq, and he used it. he had complete legal authority to do what he did.

If Bush had BL, and violated it, he would have been a lawbreaker, and Congress would have thrown a fit, at least the dems.

To be honest, I would have preferred no resolution until the facts were known, but BL is twenty times better than IWR.

[sandnsea]

64. It just wasn't

Denial is a tough cookie to crack. Enjoy it if it makes you feel better.

[Pastiche423]

67. I am not the one in denial

I have our recent history to back me up.

[CTLawGuy]

68. im sorry you

have to rationalize your candidate's voting record these past 3 years. If I knew I had to defend a cowardly, DLC wimp who enabled a grossly illegal and costly war, and reconcile that with my liberal conscience, I'd be doing some SERIOUS historical revisionism too.

[sandnsea]

72. Dean did too

He shouldn't have made his 60 day invasion statements. He shouldn't have said we'd need to review our civil rights after 9/11. He should have supported repealing the entire Patriot Act, instead of just portions. He should have supported repealing NAFTA and the WTO.

Dean was WAY more DLC in the 90's than Kerry. And the transformation he made in 2003 was nothing short of miraculous, the blind allegiance from his supporters is more miraculous still.

[CTLawGuy]

76. 60 day invasion statement

based on threat from ACTUAL WMD, not phantom speculation. he said that there would be a DISCUSSION about civil rights and liberties. He favored that discussion, not any particular course of action.

Yes, there are some parts of the PA he likes, thats ok. I may not agree with him. I am not for repealing NAFTA and WTO either, many liberals are, and they may not like Dean, that's fine.

But Dean was RIGHT to want to hear a stronger case before deciding to cede war power to Bush.

[sandnsea]

82. Who's rewriting history?

The 60 day statement was NOT about WMD, it was about inspections. Voting for Biden-Lugar was to force the UN to put those inpsectors into Iraq.

So now you're okay with some of the PA and NAFTA & WTO, although you just slammed Kerry for being a DLC whore for voting for those things.

I can't keep up.

[CTLawGuy]

146. Dont put words in my mouth

Kerry is a DLC whore for supporting the war and for supporting Corporate Tax Cuts. (The two biggest reasons). He shouldn't have voted for the PA as a whole, though not everything in it is bad. And I dont care that much about NAFTA and WTO.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

148. Unnecessary - your own words show you to be wrong

as well as unnecessarily divisive. That is when the are not simply false.


Indeed as Sandnsea says: The 60 day statement was NOT about WMD, it was about inspections.

That is a fact.


You are indeed trying to rewrite history.

[CTLawGuy]

154. I didnt dispute what you quoted

I disputed something else, if you would read what I said.

[Pastiche423]

52. They did not hold the same view

That is simply not true.

The truth of the matter, is that some kerry supporters are now trying to re-write the recent past to make their candidate look rightgeous.

Kerry is not rightgeous. He took the cowardly, yet politically expediantly way out. And it's come back to bite him in the ass.

As kerry has said on another occassion - "It isn't going to change. Get over it!"

[sandnsea]

55. Saying what Dean said?

You're stuck on defending your guy just like the Bushie's are stuck on defending him. Ego.

Their view was exactly the same, Dean supported war as a last resort, Dean support a resolution to force inspections in Iraq, there's no difference between the two.

[Pastiche423]

61. No, I am stuck on defending the truth

Kerry voted for the war and still defends his vote.

He voted for the death of tens of thousands of human beings, so that it would not hurt his political standing. (Grandstanding?)

You can try to twist the truth, but it will not wash.

Dean said capturing Saddam did not make the world safer. Kerry chastized him for saying that.

Which one had the courage to speak the truth?

[sandnsea]

66. bla bla bla

Like I said above, stay in your denial if it makes you feel better. Whatever.

And Dean was wrong about Saddam, the world would be safer with Saddam captured if Bush hadn't fucked up rebuilding Iraq. The world would be safer with the Taleban gone too, if Bush hadn't fucked up Afghanistan as well.

[CTLawGuy]

71. Dean said

AMERICA was not safer with Saddam gone, and he was RIGHT.

[sandnsea]

74. Nope

America could have been safer with Saddam gone as well, in the long run especially, for a whole host of reasons. Like I said, Bush has fucked that up as well.

[CTLawGuy]

77. HAHA

What planet do you live on?

Did you walk outside everyday shaking in your boots over Saddam Hussein? I sure didn't. Saddam was NO THREAT to us. He was CONTAINED. He barely could defend himself from our invasion.

[killbotfactory]

79. Yeah, Rice and Powell even said so...

Before the neocons took over after 9/11, anyway...

[sandnsea]

85. With sanctions

Which were crumbling and not likely to stay in place. A Saddam with complete economic freedom would have been the Saddam in power in 1991 in short order. A disruption to the entire ME and therefore a threat to world and US security. In the long run, which is what I said. If Bush hadn't bungled every single thing in the ME, we would all be safer with Saddam gone.

[killbotfactory]

90. It was obvious Bush was going to screw up...

And taking out Saddam was never worth the cost in lives and money needed to accomplish the task.

Well, unless your a military contractor, in the oil business, or someone who has financial ties to them. Then you make out like a bandit!

[Northwind]

91. It is very interesting

That Kerry Cultists, in trying to defend Kerry's IWR vote, inevitably find themselves de facto defending Bush, which they do with equal enthusiasm to defending Kerry.

[sandnsea]

92. Defending Bush??

No, defending reality. Having Saddam out of Iraq makes dealing with I/P, Saudi's, Iran and a host of other problems in the region a whole lot easier. If we didn't have Bush in there fucking it up worse than when we started.

Which, BTW, doesn't justify regime change in order to accomplish any of that. My only point is that this is the reason Dean was wrong when he said the US and the world wasn't safer with Saddam gone. The potential is definitely there, with a different President.

[killbotfactory]

95. Um.. you're saying we would be safer with Saddam gone if Bush hadn't..

fucked up... and then saying Dean was wrong for saying we're not safer with Saddam gone... Despite the fact that Bush had already fucked up by that time...

Do you see why what your saying is nonsense?

[sandnsea]

108. Oh nice try

That's not what Dean was saying at all and you know it. He was saying Saddam was no threat so his removal didn't matter. Which is just completely not true.

Which doesn't mean we have to have a war every time there's a threat out there, but Dean's statement about Saddam was wrong and stupid.

[killbotfactory]

143. Yes it was

And he used the example of our troops lost and the possibility of some fundamentalist regime replacing Saddam as the reason.

[Rose Siding]

127. The Iraq war bred terrorists

-swelled the ranks -more terrorism now than in the last 21 years -MORE than in 2001.

So how does insuring that we're reviled by the moderate Arab world make us safer?

"If we didn't have Bush..." But we DO and we DID and MOST of the dems in the Congress put that info to good use.

[killbotfactory]

73. "if Bush hadn't fucked up"

Bush was fucking up left and right before the war started, and had continued to fuck up for months up until Dean said we aren't safer with Saddam gone. This war had DISASTER written on it from the beginning, highlighted and underlined even.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

156. Actually, you are defending a lie.

Kerry voted for the war


That is a lie.

Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

He voted for the death of tens of thousands of human beings

That is a lie. If you want to make the case that voting for the IWR was wrong, you can do so. But to say that Kerry 'voted for the death of tens of thousands of human beings' is a bald-faced lie.

[Pastiche423]

191. On October 10-11 2002

Kerry voted for the IWR.

If he did not support killing innocent men, women, children and babies, he would have voted no.

Unless you are trying to say that kerry was so ignorant not to know that by voting for the IWR, innocent human beings would be slaughtered, then maybe I would agree.

But it is difficult for me to believe that a man that has been in combat would be so ignorant.

Furthermore, unless he has stated otherwise today, he still supports the continuation of the slaughter.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

195. I don't care how many times you repeat your false and inflammatory lies.

They are still lies.

It is a lie to say that a vote for the IWR was a vote to 'kill innocent men, women, children and babies'.

It might be more polite to call it a mischaracterization, but it is more accurate to call it a lie.

[Pastiche423]

233. lol

What is untrue about what I said?

1) kerry voted for the Iraq War Resolution

2) kerry voted for the Iraq War Resolution knowing it meant the US would bomb the crap out of Iraq

3) kerry knew the US would bomb the crap out of Iraq because he has been in a war before and that's what happens in a war

4) To this day (July 19, 2004), kerry has not stated that the war was wrong

5) kerry has nuanced the crap out of his decision, because his decision was wrong, but he can't admit it because he's afraid he would look like the wuss he is

6) Another reason he can't admit he was wrong and that he is a wuss, is because he needs swing votes and thinks he must be pro-war in order to get those votes, all the while ignoring the HUGE anti-war voters, assuming in his elitest, arrogant way that he is entitled to their votes.

7) Between October 11, 2002 and now, tens of thousands of innocent men, women, children and babies have been slaughtered because he and other wimpy Dems cared more about their political careers than they did innocent human lives.

He voted for the Iraq War Resolution for one reason and one reason only - EXPEDIENCY!

He owns that vote and nothing will change that fact.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

255. What is untrue?

The statement that I said was untrue.

He voted for the death of tens of thousands of human beings

That is what is untrue. That is the lie.


Personally I don't believe you really care about the innocent lives lost as much as you care about feeling righteous indignation towards Kerry. Otherwise you would be directing your efforts differently. You would actually be working against Bush instead of against Kerry. It's your choice and your right to criticize Kerry if you want.

But when someone repeats the lie: He voted for the death of tens of thousands of human beings I will challenge it.


btw, do you think putting the word 'war' in boldface everywhere it appeared in your post made your arguments more persuasive? lol

[killbotfactory]

59. They've been rewriting history as it was happening.

And it's the same damn people, saying Kerry was trying to quench our thirst while he was peeing on us.

[TeacherCreature]

57. do you really think that rewriting history is going to change anyone's

mind?
Give it up. Be happy that most people are going to vote for Kedwards anyway. But please stop thinking you are changing any minds with your assault on our intelligence.

[sandnsea]

60. The history is in the first post

It's astonishing to me that people still cling to the idea that Dean was against the war from the start when his own words show that he clearly wasn't. I don't know why intelligent people can't comprehend what's in front of their own eyeballs.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

107. That is a lie.

The falsehood of it has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and you continue to repeat it.


There are times when it just has to be said,

"Kerry sure shut up about it

after the war started, until it started going badly"

is a lie, and you know it is a lie.

It's proven to be a lie in the original post in this thread.



I'm not accusing you personally of dishonesty, nor am I calling you a liar, nor am I making any comment about you personally. I am simply pointing out that your post is a lie.

[killbotfactory]

171. It's not a lie. Kerry stated he supported Bush's decision to "disarm'

Saddam. After the statue fell. He said very little after that about the war in Iraq until it started going badly and it was clear bush "fucked it up".

[Feanorcurufinwe]

186. Repeating a lie does not make it more believable.

Both Kerry and Dean supported disarming Saddam. Both Kerry and Dean opposed the invasion on the grounds that the UN inspection process had not been followed, and argued that Bush unnecessarily rushed the nation to war. I have provided numerous citations supporting what I'm saying; all you've done is repeat the same false charges over and over.

For example, you keep lying about what Kerry said in that you will quote him as saying he believed Saddam needed to be disarmed (just as Dean said) and then you falsely say that when Kerry says the words 'disarm Saddam' it means the same thing as 'invade Iraq'


That is a lie. And I don't care whether it is politically incorrect for me to point it out or whether this post gets deleted for bluntly stating the truth.

[killbotfactory]

236. KERRY SAID HE THOUGHT BUSH WAS RIGHT TO DISARM SADDAM

Disarm meaning invasion.

It's not fucking rocket science.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

254. Dean: Saddam must be disarmed

Dean:"never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000395.html

Dean:Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html



Disarm meaning invasion.

Actually 'disarm' means 'disarm'. 'Invasion' means 'invasion'.

LOL, it's not fucking rocket science.

[Nameless]

226. I'm a little late in this conversation, but...

you may remember that Kerry called for a "regime change" here soon after the war started and things seemed to be going great for the war. It may not be Daschle's declaration that Bush "failed so miserably at diplomacy that we are now on the verge of war", but I found it to be pretty clear.

[killbotfactory]

235. It's not that Kerry was pro-Bush

He thought the invasion was the right thing to do and said he supported Bush's decision to invade.

[mzmolly]

122. They both supported inspections. But Dean never supported the war.

Dean wanted PROOF Saddam was a threat. Kerry was fine with the ambiguous evidence The Bush team provided.

I posted a thread the other day about Kerry's pre-war position and his statement about supporting the inspections. I am trying to feel better about supporting him. I am trying to understand John Kerry.

What I've decided is this:

If all goes well in Iraq from here on out, Kerry can say "I supported the President."

If all hell breaks loose, and things continue down a destructive path, Kerry can say "Bush mis-handled this entire situation."

I have to say, politically I think this is why voters chose him. So in essence 'it's working for him.'

Never the less, I doubt anyone can find ONE quote by Kerry that says "I did not/do not support the War in Iraq."

I am certain we can find MANY quotes from Dean to this effect.

Kerry had it right in the beginning, when he supported the inspections, but as others have pointed out, he broke with Dean after the fact. Today he says he doesn't support the Presidents handling of the war, or that Bush rushed to war, but I have never heard him say "the war was wrong." He simply says "Bush went about it the wrong way." He complains that we didn't have international support. Well, with or without such support, the war was wrong.

Kerry won the nomination, largely because no matter what happens in Iraq, he'd be considered viable. So, who's to question, his political strategy, it has worked for him thus far. And, if he wins I hope he will return to his roots.

I really think we should quit rehashing this though. Most of us are on the same side now. "KERRY/EDWARDS as opposed to BUSH/CHENEY" :hi:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

159. Let's see them.

Never the less, I doubt anyone can find ONE quote by Kerry that says "I did not/do not support the War in Iraq."

I am certain we can find MANY quotes from Dean to this effect.


Let's see them. I don't think they exist. I'm not trying to say Dean supported the war. I'm just saying that you won't find any categorical and unqualified statements from Dean saying "I do not support the war in Iraq" before the fact. Because Dean is a career politician and he knows better than that.


Here's some quotes we do have from Dean before the fact:

Dean:Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html



Dean:"In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred."
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html


Dean:"never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000395.html

[CTLawGuy]

160. point by point

Dean:Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

---
Who wouldn't be in favor of disarming Saddam Hussein? But Dean's statements are predicated on us knowing that Saddam has actual WMD that threatened us. Dean later says the president never made the case that Saddam had WMD that threatened us. If his position were as you suggest, why wouldn't he be in favor of the invasion? The war was equally as popular back when Dean said this as when Dean first spoke out against the invasion. What does Dean gain by supposedly switching?

---
Dean:"In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred."
---
A very reasonable position that I'm sure most DUers would agree with. The key is the threat must be ACTUAL and IMMINENT (meaning we must do something NOW). Dean later says the president never made the case for either of those criteria. If Saddam was actually threatening this country with WMD, we have the right under international law to take unilateral action to stop him
---

Dean:"never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."

---
No one disputes that Saddam is evil, or that, if we find any WMD(Dean had the unsubstantiated personal belief that he probably had WMD) we should remove them.


None of these quotes suggest that the US should have gone to war BEFORE the inspectors were done, WITHOUT evidence of WMD, or without a case for imminent threat. What they DO say, is that Saddam should not be allowed to threaten the United States with WMD, a very reasonable position.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

164. I knew you wouldn't able to find any antiwar quotes from Dean preinvasion.

As far as I know, Dean did not make any such unqualified statements saying he was opposed to the Iraq war prior to the invasion. Many of his fans would like to believe he did, but the reality is, he hedged his bets like any career politician would.

[killbotfactory]

168. Bullshit

Will you just knock off this fucking nonsense already?

I posted a long string of quotes during the primaries, REPEATEDLY, which outlined his position on the war. He was against it. Said the president didn't make his case. Just look up his fucking speech to the california dem convention right before the war.

Seriously, just fucking stop.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

170. Put up or shut up. Dean never voiced unqualifed opposition

prior to the invasion.


If I'm wrong, it should be easy to demonstrate. Just provide a quote from Dean, prior to the invasion, in which he voiced unqualified opposition to the Iraq war.

[CTLawGuy]

173. see post 169

NT

[killbotfactory]

176. He said Bush did not make the case for war

Before the invasion.

Is that clear enough for you?

What with all the goalpost shifting? "Unqualified opposition"? You mean if Iraq WERE proven a threat and inspectors couldn't do their jobs, Dean would support the fucking war? What the hell do you mean?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

179. That's my point. Read the original post.

Actually, I will provide the quotes again here. Dean and Kerry shared the same viewpoint. Neither of them voiced unqualified opposition to the war.

But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.
--John Kerry Jan. 23, 2003
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html


In short, America may have to go to war with Iraq, but we should not rush into war - especially without broad international support.

Now, I am not among those who say that America should never use its armed forces unilaterally. In some circumstances, we have no choice. In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred.

However, that case has not been made, and I believe we should continue the hard work of diplomacy and inspection.

We should work with the Security Council to push the UN inspection process as hard as possible, as fast as possible, and with as much help as possible from our intelligence assets. We should continue as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmament and the inspectors tell us credibly that there is promising work to be done. We should have the inspectors report back every 30 or 60 days, so that we can assess whether to continue on course or take tougher action.

If particular weapons of mass destruction are discovered, by the inspectors or otherwise, they must be destroyed immediately, by the inspectors or by the Iraqi government. If they are not, their destruction should be accomplished by military action under the UN. I believe that every member of the Security Council would support such an approach.
--Howard Dean Feb. 17 2003
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html

[killbotfactory]

249. Dean thought the invasion was wrong

Kerry didn't, although he it was his "strong personal preference" that Bush go about it a different way.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

258. Maybe so, but then, why didn't he say so?

Here is Dean's statement on the invasion:

'Tonight, for better or worse, America is at war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. Those of us who, over the past 6 months, have expressed deep concerns about this President's management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction.
Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam 'unsuitable, immoral and intolerable.'
This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced --this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so.'
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000395.html

Read that carefully. Do you see Dean saying: 'this invasion is wrong' ? NO. Do you see Dean saying: 'this is a mistake' ? NO. Do you see Dean saying: 'I am opposed to this invasion' ? NO. Instead Dean references 'Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq' carefully avoiding any categorical statement of personal opposition to the war that might be used against him later on in the campaign. I don't blame him - that's how any savvy, career politician like Dean would handle the issue.

[CTLawGuy]

169. I wasn't originally looking for quotes

but, since you asked...

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/cdp0303/dean031503spt.html

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
Address to California State Democratic Convention
Sacramento, California
March 15, 2003

(snip)
What I want to know, what I want to know, is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President's unilateral intervention in Iraq? .

(snip)
But I don't think we can win the White House if we vote for the President's unilateral attack on Iraq in Washington and then, and then come to California and say we're against the war.

-------

According to http://www.iraqtimeline.com/mar03.html, the Invasion began on March 19, 2003. Dean's speech was on March 15th, 2003, 4 days before the invasion.

Not a good day for you, is it :hi:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

177. And you still haven't provided any such quote.

There is no unqualified opposition to the Iraq war stated in this quote.


That is to say, although Dean falsely accused 'so many Democrats' of 'supporting the President's unilateral intervention in Iraq', conspicuously absent from this quote is any unqualified statement of opposition to the Iraq war.


Do you know what the phrase 'unqualified opposition' means? For example if Dean had said prior to the invasion: "We should not invade Iraq", that would be unqualified opposition. Contrast this with Dean's actual statement on the eve of the invasion.

It's a good example of what I was saying - Dean is a career politician who did a masterful job of straddling the fence on this issue.

[CTLawGuy]

182. don't you think that was IMPLIED

in his questioning of why other Democrats were voting for Bush's war?

You don't question something when you agree with it.

[CTLawGuy]

183. your "statement" doesn't show anything

that refutes what I'm trying to say. The closest it comes to that is he wishes the troops success. Who doesn't? It doesn't mean he WASN'T against the invasion. He even says he is going to "continue to speak out." That would imply he's spoken out before.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

184. That's funny.

"your "statement" doesn't show anything"
that refutes what I'm trying to say

I'm not trying to refute anything you are saying. I asked for a quote from Dean preinvasion that voices unqualified opposition to the war. There is no such quote because Dean did not hold that viewpoint.

[TeacherCreature]

54. baloney

What a manipulative bunch of nonsense.
Anyone who was around for the primaries know the difference.
Dean was right, Kerry was wrong.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

100. Gee why bother examining their actual positions

now that the heat of the primaries are over. Let's just hold onto the divisive emotions we felt then, instead.

[sandnsea]

38. I know, it's nuts

Nice try, Feanor, I don't get it either.

[Mr_Spock]

35. Dean - sorry Kerry.

n/m

[sandnsea]

37. Are you surprised?

Exact same position and they still can't see it. *sigh*

[CTLawGuy]

42. exact same position?

Dean - spoke out against IWR, says president did not make case for war. Would have supported BL, which only allows action to get rid of WMD. Says US no safer with Saddam gone. Would have taken unilateral action to get WMD that were threatening us, if necessary. Ciritcized war consistently throughout.

Kerry - voted for IWR, claimed to be voting for something other than what the resolution said. Believed president's "case". Position on BL unknown. Believes (ostensibly) getting rid of Saddam has made the US safer. Criticized war only when it was going badly.

Their positions are quite different. Kerry gave the president war making power on a shaky case without proof. Dean would have voted for a resolution limiting presidents warmaking powers to getting WMD, and wanted stronger proof before oking general invasion powers.

[Selwynn]

41. oh look! They're exactly the same!

Big shock..

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

53. "political pussy"

That's why. Because there's two speeches that have the exact same view and after all this time, Deanie's STILL can't see it.

I guess some of us keep hoping that enough time will pass that sooner or later the Deanie's will see the truth about the war, but not yet I guess.

[killbotfactory]

56. You can't define their actions before and after the war in two speeches.

Kerry took the political cowardice route and it payed off for him. I don't want to go through the same fucking arguement that was argued over for fucking months during the primaries.

Kerry thought Bush botched the diplomacy but supported the fucking war anyway.

Dean said he never made the case for war and was clearly against it.

[sandnsea]

63. Just not true

He did not support the war. He said clearly that Bush should have given the inspections process and diplomacy more time, that it was not necessary to launch the war when Bush did. That doesn't rule out the possibility of war if inspectors had found something in March or April of 2003; but it also doesn't support the fucking war.

[killbotfactory]

69. You don't get it

Kerry wanted more time for inspections and diplomacy. I acknowledge that. But he supported the war. He said he supported Bush's decision to invade. He said so in the first debate in SC with George Snufflebunnyluffagus. Nevermind that Bush violated every condition Kerry demanded he meet before going to war.

edit:
It's called playing both sides of the fence, AKA political cowardice, waffling, etc...

[sandnsea]

80. No

Supporting the concept of a President making decisions on US security isn't the same thing as saying you'd do the same thing yourself. Here's another snip of what Kerry said in SC,

"45 minutes deployment of WMD, number one. Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two. Nuclear weapons, number three. I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four. They are really misleading all of America in a profound way. This administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path."

[killbotfactory]

86. That's from January 2004

I'm talking from about May 2003.
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=14405&keyword=&phrase=&contain=

It's in his own goddamn words:
And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MA): George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

Now tell me, how in the fucking hell is that the same as Dean's position on the war?

[sandnsea]

93. Wrong on both counts

That was taken from the 2003 debate, I'm fairly sure.

Your comment, which is the only one you can ever find to make the claim "Kerry supported the war", is the exact one I was referring to.

Supporting the concept of a President making decisions on US security isn't the same thing as saying you'd do the same thing yourself.

[killbotfactory]

97. What a bunch of horseshit

I looked up the quote you provided and it came from Jan 2004.

Saying you support the presidents decision to invade another country
is called supporting the invasion.

Whatever, continue to do your mental gymnastics for all I care. You seem to think Kerry can do no wrong, no matter how much evidence is presented to you.

[sandnsea]

109. "I'm fairly sure"

Is what I said. In any event, sorry, but he made similar statements in 2003 anyway.

I support any President doing their job as President and that they have to do what they think is right to protect the country. ANY President.

I didn't support this war and John Kerry didn't either. Continued inspections could have changed my mind. Finding massive stockpiles of WMD in Iraq would have changed my mind too. I would have had to admit Bush was right, very painful indeed.

[mzmolly]

112. What on earth does this mean?

"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein."

:shrug:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

163. Dean and Kerry both thought Saddam needed to be disarmed.

And they both thought that Bush was wrong to invade, when, and in the manner he did, without assembling a coalition or allowing the UN inspection process to work.

Dean on disarming Saddam:

Dean:Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html

Dean:"never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000395.html



MATTHEWS: Were we right to go to Iraq?
KERRY: Not the way the president did it. Clearly, no, because he didn't plan for how to win the peace. He didn't build the kind of coalition he said he would. He didn't keep his promises to the American people. He promised he would respect the U.N. He promised he would, in fact, build an international coalition and he promised he would go to war as a last resort. And, Chris, one of the great lessons I learned in Vietnam is the meaning of the words last resort. I think the test for a president as to whether or not you send young men or women anywhere to fight is whether you can look in the eyes of parents if you lose one of them and say to those parents, I tried to do everything in my power to avoid this happening to your child. But we had no choice for the security of our country. I believe the president of the United States fails that test in Iraq.

<snip>

MATTHEWS: In retrospective, Dean says, I think it was wrong to go to war. In retrospect, Lieberman says we were right to go to war. Dick Gephardt says we were right to go to war. John Edwards says we're right to go to war. General Clark says we're not right to get to war go to war. Where are you in that with that kind of clarity?
KERRY: I just answered I answered your question.
MATTHEWS: Were we right to have gone to war?
KERRY: I answered your question right up front. I said to you....
MATTHEWS: Well, yes or no?
KERRY: I said no. Not under the circumstances he went. I told you that, Chris.
MATTHEWS: So were we wrong to go to Iraq in war?
KERRY: The way the president did it, yes.
MATTHEWS: What was the right way to go to war?
KERRY: As a last resort, when you exhaust the remedies available to you and you have proven that you have to do it because there is no other alternative. In other words, in Iraq, we had a legitimate threat, according to every intelligence indicator we were given. But we hadn't built the coalition. We didn't have a plan to win the peace. The president rushed to war. I said so at the time. I said I would have preferred that he did more diplomacy. I don't know how you can be more clear than that.
http://www.csgv.org/document.cfm?documentID=139

[killbotfactory]

178. No, Kerry thought the invasion was okay, Powell proved the case..

Said he supported Bush's decision to disarm Iraq (referring to invading), but then said he went about it the wrong way.

Dean didn't think the invasion was okay, because Bush went about it the wrong way and never proved Iraq was a threat, and didn't believe Powell made the case for invasion.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

180. "Kerry thought the invasion was okay" THAT IS A LIE

A baldfaced lie.

MATTHEWS: My second question concerns Howard Dean. Let's to go my first question. It is so abrupt. Were we right to go to Iraq?
KERRY: Not the way the president did it. Clearly, no, because he didn't plan for how to win the peace. He didn't build the kind of coalition he said he would. He didn't keep his promises to the American people. He promised he would respect the U.N. He promised he would, in fact, build an international coalition and he promised he would go to war as a last resort. And, Chris, one of the great lessons I learned in Vietnam is the meaning of the words last resort. I think the test for a president as to whether or not you send young men or women anywhere to fight is whether you can look in the eyes of parents if you lose one of them and say to those parents, I tried to do everything in my power to avoid this happening to your child. But we had no choice for the security of our country. I believe the president of the United States fails that test in Iraq.
MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to war with Iraq if the U.N. had supported it?
KERRY: Well, we...
MATTHEWS: Well?
KERRY: The answer the answer is very simply yes. If the U.N. had supported it, there was a very...
MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to war if the U.N. had not supported it?
KERRY: If I were president at the time?
MATTHEWS: Right. Right.
KERRY: I would have made the judgment of whether or not to go to war, which is what a president is supposed to do. The United States of America should never be perceived as or never should go to war because we want to. We should go to war because we have to.
MATTHEWS: Did we have to go to Iraq?
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Did we have to go?
KERRY: ....until you've exhausted the remedies of....
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you. Howard Dean is opposed to going to Iraq. He's simple. Absolutely, bottom line, against the war.
KERRY: Well, he's not, actually....
MATTHEWS: Joe Lieberman is for the war. Dick Gephardt is for the war, John Edwards sat right there last week and he is still for the war despite the bad intelligence he got. He says, I'm still for the war. How are you different than Dean on this issue?
KERRY: Let me correct you. Howard Dean is not clear and he is not simple. He has, in fact, embraced several positions. One of which is the Biden-Lugar amendment which, in fact, gave authorization to the president but under a slightly different wrinkle than the one we passed. Howard Dean also said he believed there were weapons of mass destruction. He believed that Colin Powell was correct. Now the question that has to be asked is, once you've come to that conclusion, what are you going to do about it? What you should do about it is precisely what I and Tom Harkin and Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and a whole bunch of us thought we should do. Which is, go to the United Nations. Properly go through the inspection process. Build a legitimate international coalition and, in fact, exhaust the remedies available to you. And if you need to go to war, you go to war because you have a sense that the country has come to the point where it has no other option. I don't believe the president did that.
MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to war if the French had said under no circumstances we would go to war with you?
KERRY: I would do whatever is necessary to protect the security of the United States.
MATTHEWS: We're going in circles here.
KERRY: No, we're not going in circles.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: In retrospective, Dean says, I think it was wrong to go to war. In retrospect, Lieberman says we were right to go to war. Dick Gephardt says we were right to go to war. John Edwards says we're right to go to war. General Clark says we're not right to get to war go to war. Where are you in that with that kind of clarity?
KERRY: I just answered I answered your question.
MATTHEWS: Were we right to have gone to war?
KERRY: I answered your question right up front. I said to you....
MATTHEWS: Well, yes or no?
KERRY: I said no. Not under the circumstances he went. I told you that, Chris.
MATTHEWS: So were we wrong to go to Iraq in war?
KERRY: The way the president did it, yes.
MATTHEWS: What was the right way to go to war?
KERRY: As a last resort, when you exhaust the remedies available to you and you have proven that you have to do it because there is no other alternative. In other words, in Iraq, we had a legitimate threat, according to every intelligence indicator we were given. But we hadn't built the coalition. We didn't have a plan to win the peace. The president rushed to war. I said so at the time. I said I would have preferred that he did more diplomacy. I don't know how you can be more clear than that.
http://www.csgv.org/document.cfm?documentID=139

[killbotfactory]

237. He said that in October of 2003

When the war started going bad.

He didn't have much negative to say about the war when it was seemingly going fine.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

253. Another bald faced lie

He didn't have much negative to say about the war when it was seemingly going fine.
That statement is nothing but a baldfaced lie.

Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change' April 3, 2003
Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that President Bush committed a ''breach of trust'' in the eyes of many United Nations members by going to war with Iraq, creating a diplomatic chasm that will not be bridged as long as Bush remains in office.

''What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,'' Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library.

Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm


Kerry Stands By Bush Criticism April 7, 2003
Presidential candidate John Kerry said Monday that democracy affords rival Democrats the right to criticize President Bush even with the nation at war.

The Massachusetts senator has come under a withering attack from Republicans for suggesting that the United States, like Iraq, needs a regime change. Traveling through Iowa, Kerry rejected what he called "phony arguments" from the GOP that political candidates should mute their criticism of the commander in chief.

"This is a democracy," Kerry said. "We could be at war a year from now. Would we put the election on hold?"

Kerry voted last fall for a congressional resolution granting Bush the authority to use military force to oust Saddam Hussein and disarm Iraq, but he has been sharply critical of the Bush administration's diplomatic efforts to assemble a coalition of allies. Last week, Kerry's regime change comment drew fire from top congressional Republicans who said the remarks were highly inappropriate with U.S. troops fighting overseas.

Since then, Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, has defended himself, arguing that unlike his Republican critics, he fought for his right to speak freely. At an elementary school in Iowa, he reminded his listeners of that past conflict and the political dynamic.

"We had an election in the middle of the Vietnam War," Kerry said. "It was the center of that election."

The lawmaker argued that the disparate views of Democrats should be central to the 2004 election, including where the candidates' stand on how the war is being conducted.

"Let's not have a lot of phony arguments here about what we can and can't talk about," Kerry said. "We need to talk in America about the things that make us strong as a country."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/politics/main547730.shtml

[TeacherCreature]

65. Really

I agree, what is the point of this?
Dean was obviously right and Kerry was ambiguously WRONG. Some people will vote for Kerry anyway. Whats with the forced fed Kool Aid?

[mzmolly]

113. Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean...

"what is the point of this?" is right!

All it does is reinforce why I supported Dean over Kerry in the first place.

[mike_c]

75. Dean....

Kerry is SO wrong about Iraq, but worse, he cannot admit his mistakes.

[mzmolly]

81. Dean.

:hi: But I'm voting for Kerry because Dean is not the nominee.

[WillyT]

83. Dean !!!

:kick:

[EndElectoral]

84. Dean, but let's move on...We've got to get Bozo out of the WH

[Northwind]

87. HAHAHA!

The way some Kerry cultists act, you'd think their guy was still at single digits in the polls or something.

Fact: Kerry played it politically safe with his IWR position.

Fact: Dean took a political gamble with his IWR position, though it should be noted he had less to lose.

Fact: Both men benefited from their approach, but the Democratic Party at large benefitted more from Dean's position. Additionally, Kerry ended up benefitting fom Dean's stance, because now Kerry can assume the same position in fact as well as in word without it seeming too outlandish.

Fact: Kerry won the primary. Dean readily acknowledged this and has pledged to support Kerry and campaign for him, and has done so enthusiastically and consistantly.

Fact: The vast majority of Dean supporters have done the same thing, at Dean's heartfelt request.

Fact: The Democratic Party and Kerry owe Dean a huge debt, which they have themselves acknowledged.

Fact: Quoting speeches means absolutely nothing. I can quote lots of speeches by Bush which are in direct contradiction to his actions. Actions matter more than words. Roughly equal worded positions mean nothing when one man's (read: Dean's) actions were more significant, more courageous, and above all more correct.

Opinion: Harcore Kerry Cultists are the worst winners in the history of the universe. I do not say Kerry himself, he has been remarkably gracious in victory, but even Bush followers showed more class in 2000 than DU Kerry Cultists do now.

[killbotfactory]

88. Damn straight...

Seriously sore winners.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

105. Just labelling your opinions as 'facts' doesn't make them so

anymore than namecalling those you disagree with as 'cultists' adds any weight to your statements.

[mzmolly]

114. Excellent post.

:toast:

I think I'll reply thusly when I see these threads:

"DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN." And, that's all I'm gonna say from now on. *cripes this shit gets old*

[NashVegas]

128. "The Worst Winners of the Universe"

Bwa-ha-ha.

So true.

And should Kerry win in November, I hope the cultists will prove my expectations wrong and not give us a repeat reverse reflection of the Republicans' smug obnoxiousness in 1994.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

167. Just who are the 'Kerry cultists'

and how are they different from 'Kerry supporters'?

[killbotfactory]

172. The ones who seem to think Kerry can do no wrong.

And can't admit Dean was right on anything.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

187. No such person exists

[Northwind]

208. Go look in the mirror

You are perhaps the prime example.

Do you actually sit up at night crying over the fact that people refuse to forget Kerry's abdication of his responsibilities on the IWR vote?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

219. A bold foray into the personal attack.

Is this meant to be an example of your skill at insult, mischaracterization and mean-spirited ridicule?


LOL

[Northwind]

245. It is a statement of fact.

Followed by a simple question, phrased with hyperbole.

Here's a news flash for you, Kerry won the primary. He is the candidate. I am voting for him.

Are you really so insecure that you still have to find ways to make Kerry seem more like Dean?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

248. So you justify namecalling and insults with your own infallibility?

Now you are calling me 'insecure' LOL


What insult will you hurl in your next comment I wonder?

[rucky]

89. Dairy! No... Keen!

Dean.

[Mr_Spock]

98. No! Derry Kwean!!

lol

[nolabels]

136. "Let's see how loud you scream for Ice Cream!"

Quiz Who wants ice cream? in category
History of Food. Trivia questions on Who wants ice cream?
http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz.cfm?qid=81031&origin=

[Darranar]

96. None of the above...

the war against Iraq was a disgusting, immoral, unjust, and idiotic campaign of slaughter, and it would have been that regardless of "international support".

[Zorra]

99. Kucinich nailed it perfectly. Proof:

November 2002 issue
The Bloodstained Path
by Dennis Kucinich

Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.
snip-----
Unilateral action on the part of the United States, or in partnership with Great Britain, would for the first time set our nation on the bloodstained path of aggressive war, a sacrilege upon the memory of those who fought to defend this country. America's moral authority would be undermined throughout the world. It would destabilize the entire Persian Gulf and Middle East region. And it would signal for Russia to invade Georgia; China, Taiwan; North Korea, the South; India, Pakistan.
snip-------
It must involve the United Nations. Inspections for weapons of mass destruction should begin immediately. Inspectors must have free and unfettered access to all sites.
snip------
If the United States proceeds with a first strike policy, then we will have taken upon our nation a historic burden of committing a violation of international law, and we would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope to hold.

http://www.progressive.org/nov02/kuc1102.html

[G_j]

102. yep n/t

[LWolf]

190. Exactly.

[Amaya]

101. Kucinich

had it right.

[JHBowden]

104. Direct responses: Dean 25, Kerry 0, Neither 9

yeeargh!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

106. You've perfectly illustrated the reason I did not post it as a poll.

A lot of people will just read the title of the thread and answer based on their preconceived opinions. However, the thread is more directed at those who actually read the two speechs and examine the positions therein with an open mind.

[killbotfactory]

162. Because history shows Kerry supporting the war

Even after putting a whole bunch of conditions for his support that were never met.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

185. That is a false, deceptive and malicious statement, unsupported by facts.

If 'history shows' your attack on Kerry to be true, why don't you provide some historical evidence instead of just making an assertion?

[killbotfactory]

238. I did

May 03, 2003 South Carolina Debate.

He said he thought Bush was right to disarm Saddam. In answer to a question about whether Bush was right to invade. This was when the statue was toppled and everybody loved the war.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

256. No matter who many times you try to redefine the word 'disarm'

so that when Kerry says it, it means 'invade' and when Dean says it, it means 'disarm', in reality, the word 'disarm' means 'disarm'.

LOL

[PassingFair]

135. Make that 26 for Dean!

And looking for, and posting quotes that suggest that Dean and Kerry were on the same page is total crap. They were both concerned men at a critical time in our nation.
Kerry caved, while Dean took the high road and fought for the truth. Admittedly, he had "less to lose" than Kerry.
But, by the gods, the fact that he wasn't afraid to lose is what made him so appealing. In my book, he hasn't really lost. He's brought throngs of us into the process. Win or lose this election, the DLC will be toppled by the progressives.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

110. If you are interested in a comparison

here is how the discussion went when I posed the same question last October:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=55118

[Solly Mack]

111. a question best answered by asking the Iraqis

We have the luxury of asking from the safety of our homes. What do they have?

It's those whom our policies kill that we should ask. Our politics can be downright murderous...

[progressivebydesign]

118. Dean.

Sorry.. Kerry was not my first choice. I support him, especially with Edwards on the ticket. But Kerry is not my idea of a reformer... far from it. He'll get the job done, but he ain't exactly blazing trails. Dean was right. Dean was right on everything, but he was chewed up and spit out by incredibly filthy tricks and attacks prominent candidates that opposed him, as well as the Rovian media attacks. History is already showing that Dean was right.

[MuseRider]

119. Kucinich n/t

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

123. This thread isn't about the so called 'occupation' it's about the position

prior to the war.

The same thing you said about Dean could be said of Nader. He wasn't in a position to vote on it was he? Nor was Al Sharpton.

By the way, I think it's against the user rules to call someone a "dipwad."

[Radical Activist]

124. The occupation IS the war

Support for the occupation is support for continued wafare. The Iraqi people certainly seem to know the war is still going on, even if Bush doesn't. If we're going to talk about the war then we have to talk about what is still happening.

I don't if Nader expressed opposition to the war early on, but Sharpton did. Sharpton was outspoken before the war began, and so was Kucinich.

If we're talking about positions before the war began, the same holds true. Dean said he would support an invasion under certain conditions, and so did Kerry. Kerry's mistake was trusting Bush to do what he said he would do before starting war. That's a dumb thing to do, but no dumber than Dean.

PS my dipwad comment wasn't directed at anyone individually.

[mzmolly]

125. Dean said time and time again ...

"The President has not made the case for war."

You sum it up by saying "Dean and Kerry would support the war under certain conditions." Fact is Dean's conditions were never met. Let's hope any of our candidates would have supported the war "under certain conditions."

The reason I supported Dean is because his position was reasonable.

Kucinich never stated under what circumstances he would support the war. I needed to know that if we were in fact 'threatened' by nukes in the hands of a madman, that our President would handle it appropriately.

By the way, I agree with Dean and Kerry on the so called occupation. We have to stay and stabilize the Country we've made a mess of. I would simply hope we do it under the banner of the United Nations, and it seems this is where Kerry would like to go with it also. Remember Dennis want's the UN in US out, but some fail to recognize we are part of the UN. It would appear Dennis supports an occupation of sorts as well.

[stilleon]

130. The right reason...

Yes, America should not enter war without reason and I opposed the Iraq war. However, America seems to only care that the end justified the means: the ouster of Saddam.

I agree that he should have been removed. He was a despot and a muderer. He killed far more people than we did in war, and he would have continued to murder. However, we should not have gone into the war without support of the U.N. By going without them we have hurt their reputation.

Bush can keep saying we are safer since the Iraq war began. he can claim there was WMD. The facts are he lied to us. Sometimes we must fight, but a President cannot lie about its reasons. And I find it so strange that the media is complicit to help him spread the lie.

Kerry has got to push Bush on his lies. Bush must be removed.

[hippywife]

137. Neither--Kucinich was right

And was saying so back as far as 2002:

http://kucinich.us/DennisKucinichWasRight.pdf


John Kerry: "Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try? According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. . .Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents…The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. It has been with us for the last four years… It is clear that in the four years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction." - October 9, 2002

Howard Dean: " have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction." - March 17, 2003

From the CBS News program Face The Nation, September 29 2002:

GLORIA BORGER, U.S. News & World Report: Governor, what exactly does the
president then have to prove to you?

DEAN: I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, does he have to have the means to deliver them to us? Or what if he had the means to give them to another terrorist group who could bring them into this country in a suitcase?

DEAN: Well, that's correct, that would certainly be grounds for us to intervene, and if we had so unilaterally, we could do that.

[lojasmo]

138. These "position statements" are the same, but.....

Dean

[truthspeaker]

140. Dean, obviously, but Kerry is our candidate and he'll be a good president

[CWebster]

141. Dean-moreso with each passing day

Was there ever any doubt?

Kerry had insider connections and benefitted from the media assassination of Dean. Dean resonated with people impatient with the Right-wing stranglehold and deception. That reality was just too scary for many at the time, but they are gradually awakening.
Now, their only choice against Bush is the compromised Kerry-Edwards team.

[JohnKleeb]

142. neither

The war was wrong no matter what. Still support Kerry 110% though. Though Ted Kennedy did say Kerry's vote and his meant the same and Kerry does regret his vote.

[lastliberalintexas]

157. Well that would be just another time

that Ted Kennedy was wrong. His and Kerry's votes were not the same, no matter what he tries to say now. Kennedy was also dead wrong about NCLB, funded or not. I guess everyone does or says something stupid every now and then.

And I've never heard Kerry say he regretted his vote. Could you provide me a link to that? It'd go a long way towards me actually voting for the man in Nov. I've only heard him say Bush screwed everything up, but that he still thought Hussein was a very, very bad man. Nothing to indicate he actually admits he made a mistake.

[Guaranteed]

144. We all know who was right, and who was

DEAD FUCKING WRONG.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

149. Are you saying there is never a need to second guess our opinions?

We should never reexamine the facts with the light of history to discover if, just maybe, our original judgements were incorrect?


I guess if you are someone who believes they are incapable of error, that would be a good philosophy. :eyes:

[CTLawGuy]

150. Why did you block PMs?

I wanted to tell you I accept your apology.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

151. I don't know what you are talking about.

As far as I know, on DU, there is no function for 'blocking PMs'.


What does this have to do with the topic of the thread, anyway?

[CTLawGuy]

153. ...

self-deleted

[Feanorcurufinwe]

155. You mischaracterized what I wrote in my PM.

And besides, you aren't supposed to post the contents of private messages in threads. That's why they are called private messages.

[CTLawGuy]

158. well, Im sorry about that

you should have just taken my prior post at face value.

I will delete my last post now (if I can, otherwise the mods may)

[unfrigginreal]

188. Hahahaha...no question about it, Dean was right.

I'd keep trying to apply lipstick to that pig though. You know that there must be scads of people undecided about where each candidate stood on this point.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

189. Yes. Dean was right. So was Kerry.

Since they did not actually have any substantive disagreement, if one of them was right, they both were.

[unfrigginreal]

193. Yeah, right.

That's why we have this quote from Kerry proclaiming that his wisdom for backing a war to rid the world of a tyrant, makes him a better candidate for President.

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." U.S. Sen. John Kerry

[Feanorcurufinwe]

194. So just what do you disagree with in Kerry's statement?

But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.
--John Kerry Jan. 23, 2003
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

What is it that Kerry said here that you disagree with?

And how does it differ from what Dean said a month later?

In short, America may have to go to war with Iraq, but we should not rush into war - especially without broad international support.

Now, I am not among those who say that America should never use its armed forces unilaterally. In some circumstances, we have no choice. In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred.

However, that case has not been made, and I believe we should continue the hard work of diplomacy and inspection.

We should work with the Security Council to push the UN inspection process as hard as possible, as fast as possible, and with as much help as possible from our intelligence assets. We should continue as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmament and the inspectors tell us credibly that there is promising work to be done. We should have the inspectors report back every 30 or 60 days, so that we can assess whether to continue on course or take tougher action.

If particular weapons of mass destruction are discovered, by the inspectors or otherwise, they must be destroyed immediately, by the inspectors or by the Iraqi government. If they are not, their destruction should be accomplished by military action under the UN. I believe that every member of the Security Council would support such an approach.
--Howard Dean Feb. 17 2003
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html

[unfrigginreal]

196. That depends on which statements you're talking about...

the statements criticizing Bush for *abusing* the authority that he gave him to go to war or the statements where he owns his IWR vote as a means to a safer world without Sadam.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

199. Your post is dishonestly unresponsive.

What do you disagree with in Kerry's statement?

But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.
--John Kerry Jan. 23, 2003
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

What is it that Kerry said here that you disagree with?

And how does it differ from what Dean said a month later?

In short, America may have to go to war with Iraq, but we should not rush into war - especially without broad international support.

Now, I am not among those who say that America should never use its armed forces unilaterally. In some circumstances, we have no choice. In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred.

However, that case has not been made, and I believe we should continue the hard work of diplomacy and inspection.

We should work with the Security Council to push the UN inspection process as hard as possible, as fast as possible, and with as much help as possible from our intelligence assets. We should continue as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmament and the inspectors tell us credibly that there is promising work to be done. We should have the inspectors report back every 30 or 60 days, so that we can assess whether to continue on course or take tougher action.

If particular weapons of mass destruction are discovered, by the inspectors or otherwise, they must be destroyed immediately, by the inspectors or by the Iraqi government. If they are not, their destruction should be accomplished by military action under the UN. I believe that every member of the Security Council would support such an approach.
--Howard Dean Feb. 17 2003
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html

[mzmolly]

205. Your Kerry link is broken, but can you show us one quote that resembles

this?

(From the link you posted above)

And I firmly believe that the President is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time, when our energy and our resources should be marshaled for the greatest threats we face. Yes, Saddam Hussein is evil. But Osama bin Laden is also evil, and he has attacked the United States, and he is preparing now to attack us again.

What happened to the war against al Qaeda?

Why has this Administration taken us so far off track?

I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America's security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the other nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein.

WRONG WAR, different path, contain Saddam Hussein = opposed, his position *CRYSTAL CLEAR*

Now show where Kerry said either of these things in that speech above.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

207. I don't agree with you.

I don't see how saying that alQaeda should be the priority - as both Kerry and Dean did in the referenced speeches http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html, http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html)


negates everything else Dean did - and didn't say.

[mzmolly]

210. You missed the part where Dean said "this is the wrong war"

"saddam should be contained" etc.

Save face FFC. This discussion is over. :hi:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

214. No I didn't.

I will refrain from making idiotic statements about what you've read, what you haven't read, what you missed, and any other personal comments about you.

If you want to respond to me, respond to the point I am making, instead of accusing me of not understanding, not reading, etc.




I don't see how saying that alQaeda should be the priority - as both Kerry and Dean did in the referenced speeches http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.h... http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html )


negates everything else Dean did - and didn't say.

[mzmolly]

215. Don't you wish you could paint this in black and white terms...

Would you like others to do the same regarding Kerry's yes vote?

"Bush hasn't made the case for war". Howard Dean as quoted above on numerous occassions: Tell me what that statement means?

Let's contrast Dean's statement to Kerry's here:

March 19, 2003, the day the war started: "I think Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him." He also said something to the effect that, "if you believe Saddam was not a threat, don't vote for me."

While Dean was saying the following: "Bush hadn't made the case for war" or "this war is wrong" ... Kerry said the above.

I don't like that you druged this stuff up because it's counter productive FFC. But, I won't let you distort the facts as your attempting to do.

By the way, the Kerry link is broken, I keep telling you that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A19692-2004Apr17

[Feanorcurufinwe]

218. No, in fact, that is the opposite of what I want.

Rather than pretend that it is black and white, that all of Dean's various statements and positions translate into the simplistic statement that he never said and that you want to ascribe to him, I am willing to accept the complex and evolving statements and positions as just that, complex and evolving positions.


I don't want to pretend Dean had a simple cut-and-dried, unambiguous position any more than I want to pretend Kerry had a simple cut-and-dried, unambiguous position.



I am arguing in favor of understanding a complex position,

(for example: Dean:Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html)

you are arguing in favor of turning that position into a soundbite.

(for example: "I do not support the War in Iraq.")

[mzmolly]

222. Actually your article is flawed. It's an incorrect paraphrase of Dean's

Position.

From YOUR article above: (Which we've had entire friggin threads about.)

Hence, today's phone calls. It's Thursday, Feb. 6, the day after Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations of evidence of Iraq's noncompliance with Resolution 1441. Edwards calls it "a powerful case." Kerry says it's "compelling." Lieberman, of course, is already in his fatigues.

Dean isn't sold. It doesn't indicate that Iraq is an imminent threat, he says."

Also, the above statement reads like this in the article:

He gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

THIS IS CLEARLY A PARAPHRASE, AND IT DOESNT JIVE WITH HIS ACTUAL QUOTE IN THIS ARTICLE! The only thing in quotations above is this. "as I've said about eight times today". THAT'S IT!

Nothing else in the article represents that bogus position either. Too bad I didn't want to sign up for a day pass, I remembered this BOGUS QUOTE the moment I looked at it.

And, as I said in my other reply to you, I'm going to bed. :hi:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

224. Wrong again

Yes, it is a paraphrase, however, it is not a contradiction of the other quote in the article. I recognize that you will never agree with me on this point.

However, if Salon had misrepresented Dean's position, the Dean campaign would have said so, and they didn't. Also that position is consistent withe the Drake University speech:

Dean:"In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred."
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html


Dean didn't say the threat was imminent, any more than Kerry said the threat was imminent. He also did not say, at any time prior to the invasion, that the war was wrong. (Yes, you have pointed out ad nauseum, that he said it was 'the wrong war', but not being dyslexic, I understand the distinction.) For example, his statement on the launch of the invasion:

Tonight, for better or worse, America is at war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. Those of us who, over the past 6 months, have expressed deep concerns about this President's management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction.
Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam 'unsuitable, immoral and intolerable.'
This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced --this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so.'
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000395.html

Read that carefully. Do you see Dean saying: 'this is a mistake' ? NO. Do you see Dean saying: 'I am opposed to this invasion' ? NO. Instead Dean references 'Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq' carefully avoiding any categorical statement of personal opposition to the war that might be used against him later on in the campaign.

[mzmolly]

241. Dean's speech after the invasion was DELIBERATELY toned down.

In support of our troops. This is on record in numerous places. Have you been asleep for the past several months? EVERYONE with a brain knew Dean was opposed to the war when he made that speech. He reiterated that those opposed (like himself) need not apologize.

NOW BACK TO THE SUBJECT.

Dean said Saddam was not an imminent threat thus the war was not justified, he said it time and time again BEFORE THE WAR. In every article and interview he makes this statement.

On the other hand, Kerry said:

March 2003
As War Began, Kerry Said Saddam Chose “To Make Military Force The Ultimate Weapons Inspections Enforcement Mechanism.” “Senator John F. Kerry … had lambasted Bush’s diplomatic efforts, despite voting last fall in support of a congressional resolution authorizing military action to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction. ‘It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism,’ Kerry said.” (Glen Johnson, “Critics Of Bush Voice Support For The Troops,” The Boston Globe, 3/20/03)

Kerry Described Secretary Of State Colin Powell’s Evidence Of WMD In Iraq As “Real And Compelling.” “ said the Bush administration has taken too long to make its case for military action, ‘but nonetheless I am glad we’ve reached this moment in our diplomacy.’ Kerry added: ‘Convincing evidence of Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction should trigger, I believe, a final ultimatum from the United Nations for a full, complete, immediate disarmament of those weapons by Iraq. Over the next hours, I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to fully examine the evidence offered by the secretary for a complete and close reading. But, on its face, the evidence against Saddam Hussein appears real and compelling.’” (Wayne Washington, “Kennedy, Others Question Timing Of Attack But Presidential Hopefuls Back War With Iraq,” The Boston Globe, 2/6/03)

January 2003
Kerry Said, “If You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

And, once again Dean said:

In a foreign policy address earlier this week at Drake University in Des Moines, Dean said Bush is too focused on "the wrong war at the wrong time."

He suggested that the "right war" would be to target al-Qaida, which caused the devastating 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. U.S. officials are convinced the malevolent al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is still alive after his last tape rallying radical Muslims to more violence.

...

At the same time, Dean said he would be prepared to go ahead against Baghdad if the U.N. Security Council approved and if it were "clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent and could neither be contained nor deterred."

Bush hasn't made the case for war, noted Dean, who endorsed more of "the hard work of diplomacy and inspection" as alternatives to the Bush war machine.

Note the drastic CONTRAST.

Your claim that the Dean campaign would/should contact Salon is interesting, especially given the fact that Kerry was continuously painted as pro-war and his campaign didn't do jack shit about it. Sure Kerry sounded a bit like Dean at times, and ... he sounded like Bush at times. As for Salon, they covered their tracks when they left out the quotation marks. Afterall, what's to retract if Dean was never quoted?

Now, let this crud die FFC. Your making things worse for the Democratic nominee.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

244. Either Dean was being honest, dishonest, or cowardly.

You can spin all you want, you can interpret things however you want, but you can change history. Dean never said what you claimed he did.


Your boast:

Never the less, I doubt anyone can find ONE quote by Kerry that says "I did not/do not support the War in Iraq."

I am certain we can find MANY quotes from Dean to this effect.

[stickdog]

192. Dean.

[Rose Siding]

209. Dean

[Suzi Creamcheese]

221. Why isn't Nader on your ballot

He was more correct than any of them. That doesn't mean he has my vote, but since you are comparing a candidate to a non-candidate why not throw them all in? And Kucinich too!

[mountainvue]

227. Feano

the link to the Kerry speech in broken or not complete? Trying to share this.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

230. Here is an up-to-date link for the Kerry GWU 1.27.03 speech

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html

Sorry about that.

[Dangerman]

229. Dean

If only he was in the ticket.

I rather support those who DON'T support the war. But I much as I felt icky about Kerry gave "Bush" the authority to wage this war, I have no choice but to vote for Kerry.

[Tight_rope]

232. Dean!

[Ronin1]

239. The Real Problem, We can't have it both ways.

I'm concerned about a unclear message that has to be explained in 1000 words. There is a real problem taking two sides of an issue.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

261. and where do you get your right wing talking points?

It's all just a matter of being truthful.

[Northwind]

246. Anyone else getting the impression

That this thread did not work out the way its author intended? :7

[Feanorcurufinwe]

251. Wow are you mistaken!

Why don't you tell all of us what my intent was, mindreader?


LOL

[mzmolly]

252. RAISES HAND.

:hi:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

259. YOu can read minds too? Why don't you tell us what my intent was?

LOL

[dionysus]

257. Dean

nt

[cprise]

260. Dean

[goodhue]

262. both were wrong about WMD; Kucinich was right

eom