Howard Dean opposed to the war, BEFORE THE WAR for those in doubt.

[mzmolly]

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.

"What happened to the war against al-Qaida?" Dean asked in his Iowa speech.

...

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.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/109643_thomas23.shtml

Read the entire speech here.

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

On edit: I AM NOT LAMENTING THE LOSS OF HOWARD DEAN. I am responding to the non-sense that Dean wasn't oppposed to the war by DU revisionists.

*FOR THE RECORD, I AM FULLY SUPPORTING KERRY/EDWARDS IN 2004

[billbuckhead]

1. And didn't have to vote on it

as Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Kucinich had to.

[w13rd0]

2. Voting on something forces one...

...to make the wrong call? Many of us didn't have to vote on it. Is our opinion irrelevant because we didn't get to make some lofty speech on the floor of Congress?

[sandnsea]

5. Dean's opinion

Was inspectors needed to go back into Iraq, by military force if necessary. That's the whole point. That's what he said before the vote and the only way to back up what he said was voting yes on the resolution. He can slice it and dice it any way he wants to now, but that was his opinion in summer and fall of 2002.

[mzmolly]

8. You didn't read the speech.

Dean's position was that we should continue diplomacy but that Al Qaida was far more important than Iraq. His position was that Bush NEVER MADE THE CASE FOR WAR.

May I remind you that inspections are not war.

[mzmolly]

7. But made his voice known before the war started. He also made bold

statements about Saddams capture not making us safer, and was criticized for doing so. So, your point about the lack of a vote on the matter is moot, he's on record as opposing the war BEFORE it started.

Also, the argument keeps changing, first Dean was not really opposed to the war, then when we show that he WAS, we hear, well, he didn't have to vote on the matter. :eyes:

[TeacherCreature]

25. That is a really bad argument

It's pointless.

[LWolf]

65. That's true. Of course,

Unlike Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt, Kucinich did not vote for the IWR. Or the Patriot Act.

[sandnsea]

3. February 2003

Wasn't Kerry for continuing diplomacy and inspections in February 2003? Oh wait, he said that in January 2003 and in 2002 as well.

Against the war from the start and criticizing the vote takes you way back to summer 2002. It's what was said then that matters. And even then, Dean said inspectors needed to go back into Iraq and verbally threatened force if it didn't happen. The only difference is, he didn't have to vote on it.

[mzmolly]

12. Kerry was for a number of things as I recall.

;)

[Bluzmann57]

4. Dean is entitled to his opinion

as are Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich, and all other Americans. Or at least it was that way a few years ago. Please, Dean people, support him, but QUIT WHINING! Whats done is done. Kerry/Edwards in '04.

[mzmolly]

11. This thread is a continuation of another conversation.

I fully support John Kerry, but I don't appreciate being told Kerry and Dean shared the same position on Iraq because it's not true.

I imagine Kerry would say the same thing.

[westsidexview]

6. dean lost, move on with kerry

[mzmolly]

9. I have, but Kerry supporters are still lamenting thus this thread.

See the thread entitled "Who was right, Dean or Kerry" ...

I realize Kerry is the nominne, and if you'll note the bumpersticker in my sigline, you'll see I have "moved on".

[GodHelpUsAll2]

10. Hmmmmm

That sounds a little familiar. Where have I heard that before????? OH OH OH I Know, it went something like this
"Gore lost, move on with Bush and Cheny and stop whinning. Yeah that's it. I knew I had heard that phrase before. Wait a minute, did no one send me the rule changes that says protest it now but when it benefits me be quiet and sit down.

[westsidexview]

13. a divided democratic party equals a republican victory.

do you want to win or be morally superior and hear heil bush from fat republicans in november.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

27. Hmmmmm

More interesting similarities. Scare tactics. If you don't agree and go along you, and you alone will be the sole body responsible for the rest of the country being squashed by the evil Bush team.
Let's compare that with a level red terrorist alert every other day. Scare tactics don't work with me from the Bush team nor do they work from anyone else.

[westsidexview]

31. what are you talking about? try ohmmm instead of hmmm

[GodHelpUsAll2]

33. Note to self

When you have no defense, pretend to not know what is being said.

[westsidexview]

38. i can smell flatus but that is not making an intelligent comment

people cannot smell there own flatulence but they can hear it. and there is the mistake. just putting words together doesn't necessarily make a point.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

41. Another note to self

When all else fails, talk about flatulation.

[westsidexview]

49. lol

[GodHelpUsAll2]

39. Just an FYI

I will be supporting the Democrat this November even know it may not have been my first second or even third choice because Bush MUST go and I am very aware of that. I am just merely pointing out the chilling similarities in the comments being made from democrats. They are eerily close to those same remarks made by the republicans and what has me scratching my head is how it was a complete outrage when the republicans said them but it seems to be quite peachy when a fellow democrat uses the same revolting remarks/logic. Can someone please explain to me how the volumes of hypocricy are ok?

[westsidexview]

44. values? democratic or republican issue?

"whoever is unable to lie does not know what truth is" -nietzsche

[GodHelpUsAll2]

52. Oh well

I have been sitting here for more than 20 minutes now waiting on some sort of reasonable response but to much disappointment there is none. I will take the lack of a reasonable response to mean there is not one. I will also take this opportunity to wish everyone a wonderful evening.

[westsidexview]

63. any time zero is divided it always equals zero

looking for a conspiracy where there isn't one is a waste of time.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

75. Glad to know

Basic math skills but tell me, how in any way does division of zero and conspiracy relate to the simple question of, hypocrisy: an outrage when it's them but ok when it's me??

[JVS]

14. Words aren't important any more, it's all about who says the words

A prime example
"Life begins at conception" If Bush says it it's bad, if Kerry says it it is OK.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. Dean did a good job of straddling the issue.

He managed to communicate his anger and opposition, while at the same time managing to avoid making any unqualified statements of opposition to the war, and all the while leaving his options open in case things turned out differently in Iraq that we all expected.

Dean is a masterful politician, and he definately played his supporters like a fiddle on this one.




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



Dean: "It's hard to criticize the president when you've got troops in the field" http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/politics/5435514.htm

[mzmolly]

18. Oh puleeze. Dean was opposed unless Saddam was shown to be an immediate

threat. Now show me anywhere the above statement DOESN'T APPLY. EVERY BOOKMARK YOU LIST, SHOWS DEAN QUALIFIES HIS POSITION TO THIS EFFECT.

U post the same articles again and again as if assuming I or others are unfamiliar? I note you won't show the portions where Dean qualifies his opposition however.

Dean had a realistic grasp of the events surrounding the war, as did Graham and Mosely Braun.

Kucinich and perhaps Sharpton were really the only Anti-War candidates PER-SE running, we all KNOW that. Dean is not a pacifist, he was opposed to the war for damn good reason.

"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.

Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the President to use unilateral force against Iraq - unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency.

I do not believe the President should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and the American people for why this war is necessary, and without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations.

That the President was given open-ended authority to go to war in Iraq resulted from a failure of too many in my party in Washington who were worried about political positioning for the presidential election.

To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests."

I'm not going to trash Kerry, but I'm still waiting for those quotes showing his oppositon before the war.

Can you provide them please?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. I am quoting. I'm sorry if you don't want to face facts.

But the facts won't change because you don't want to acknowledge them. I am using quotes, citations and verifiable references to back up the factual statements I am making. I keep posting them because you keep pretending they don't exist.

[mzmolly]

51. HERE'S THE FACTS, DEAN MAINTAINED THE CASE FOR WAR WAS NOT MADE.

That's the quote you keep forgetting to face. Dean's position evolved over time, as did mine, but he was clear in every sense that Bush had not made a case for war in every thing I've read.

Dean thought Saddam should be disarmed via inspections. Kerry said he felt that way as well, but later appeared to support the invasion.

Request #5 for those Anti-war quotes from Kerry.

I wish you had let sleeping dogs lie FFC, but I can't stand by and watch you revise the truth.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

64. That point is not in dispute. Please take caps lock off. It's not polite.

I don't like being yelled at, and it doesn't make your arguments more persuasive.


Dean thought Saddam should be disarmed via inspections. Kerry said he felt that way as well, but later appeared to support the invasion.

Look, I don't know how things 'appeared' to you, but it would be a lie to say that Kerry supported the invasion.


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

Kerry: "If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible." http://www.seanrobins.com/kerry/kerry_senate_2002_10_09.htm




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

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




And compare their stances here, while the invasion was actually taking place:

Kerry: "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 Says US Needs Its Own Regime Change

Kerry: "This is a democracy, we could be at war a year from now. Would we put the election on hold?" Kerry Stands By Bush Criticism

Dean: "It's hard to criticize the president when you've got troops in the field" Dean to ease up on Bush



The fact is, Kerry and Dean both tried to straddle the same line on Iraq, Dean did it more successfully when it came to anti-war activists, Kerry did it more successfully when it came to the general electorate. But if you examine their stated positions at any point in time over the course of this whole thing, you will find the real differences are in tone, not substance.

[mzmolly]

70. So Kerry supported the regime change.

I've read the cherry picked quotes above nothing about them bolsters your revisionist case.

Kerry: "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq."

It took all of two seconds to find this from your first link:

"Dean isn't sold. It doesn't indicate that Iraq is an imminent threat, he says. Do me a favor and read what you post first. Every article you post will show that Dean said the case has not been made. The case has not been made, the case has not been made.

Simple really.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. You are trying to manufacture a disagreement where there is none.

And the deliberate mischaracterization in your thread title is clearly meant to inflame. But I'm not biting.

[madfloridian]

40. More from the Salon article, can be read other ways.

SNIP...."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."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More from your GWU article:
"I believe that the President must do more on the most important front in the war on terrorism - our home front - through strengthened and well-funded first responders and effective security measures that go beyond calls to purchase plastic sheeting and duct tape.

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."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
And from your 3 link, when the war had just started and nothing he said would matter right then:
SNIP..."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."

Let's see, what the hell else could he say right then? Huh? You are very good about just putting a little bit of what he says and conveniently forgetting the rest.

You are really need to stop whining when we stand up for what we believe. You need to put more of the quotes. Just "get over" us Dean people and move along.

You are always making it clear that if we say anything anti-war that it excuses Kerry and Edward's votes because Dean once said Saddam was a bad guy. NO, it doesn't.

You want us to not criticize. Then you be fair when you quote.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

80. And a lot more context from the last article you posted.

SNIP..."We all have got to support the troops. They didn't send themselves over there, and they're doing their jobs for the country."

But in an interview with The State newspaper, Dean stressed he's not changing his position on the Iraqi war, which he still thinks will get the United States into serious trouble.

It will make America more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, he said, and attacking a nation that's not an imminent threat to the United States "sets an example for everyone else and gives justification to others to do the same thing."

[Fleshdancer]

16. this is exactly why I supported Dean in the primaries

I will be voting for Kerry as well but there's no point in denying that Dean was right on this subject and Kerry was wrong.

Even if the war was justified and even if we all agreed that going into Iraq was a good idea, I still don't like the idea of Congress throwing away their responsibility of declaring war. Giving Bush or any President the power to go to war is insane...the checks and balances were put in place for this exact reason. Why do we accept this?

Our government didn't have the needed conversation before this war. Kucinich, Braun, and Dean spoke loudly against the war, but were pretty much ignored until Dean started to break fundraising records. I'm thankful to him for putting Iraq back on the table considering it should have never been taken off the table to begin with.

[NoPasaran]

17. Yes, Dean lost the nomination

And Kerry/Edwards will be the nominees. But Dean was right about the war. I wish that Kerry and Edwards had voted the other way on the IWR. But they have my wholehearted support, as well as that of Howard Dean. Nothing is more important than defeating Bush. All our differences as Democrats are a trifle compared to our differences with Bush.

[mzmolly]

19. I fully agree with you.

:toast:

[Selwynn]

20. The problem is that Deans "position" has always been inconsistant

vasilating from opposition to conditional support, and back again. It solidified into its final form as it began to be clear the way in which things were headed.

Funny thing about it is, if Dean have been a Senator, and not a former governor, I am absolutely convinced beyond any shadow of doubt he would have voted for IWR along with everyone else, becuase he is not really all that differnent from any other candidate, just better at acting like he is.

[mzmolly]

28. No it's been consistant. The position has always been as such:

"The case for war has not been made."

[Old and In the Way]

21. Does being a representitive of 1 constituent or 12 million

factor into a politician's position?

In hindsight, Dean was right (and he was right before the vote).

Let's say that you were in Kerry's shoes looking at the intel and you conclude-

There's a 99% chance that this intel is BS, but 1% chance that this intel is right. If you vote anti-IWR and a nuke detonates in Worcester, incinerating 2MM constituents....do you get a chance to rethink your vote? How do you explain your vote to your remaining constituents?

Hindsight is a beautiful thing, no? And isn't this precisely what the whole IWR vote was set-up to accomplish?

Sadly, while Bush/Rove were playing politics to screw the Dems in the mid-terms, what they've really done is damage the insitution of the Presidency when future events may dictate real and immediate bi-partisan support....the precedent that they've created will not serve future Presidents well.

[mzmolly]

29. I'm not trashing Kerry, just responding to the absurd suggestion that he

and Dean agreed on the war.

I allow my politicans to be human. ;)

[Old and In the Way]

62. Fair enough!

Just trying to flesh out the motivations Kerry faced in Congress that Dean was unencumbered with.

Honestly, I don't see a whole lot of differences between Kerry and Dean on the issues, IWR notwithstanding.

Glad to see you're on the bus, though, mzmolly! :-)

[TeacherCreature]

23. and here is a link from March 2003

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

[jpgray]

24. Dean's position, as I understand it, was this

He saw some circumstances wherein preemptive, unilateral war would be jsutified. However, he was not convinced that Bush had made that case before the war, and he would only support going to war unilaterally if that case was made. He supported Biden / Lugar, which may seem to contradict that previous statement, but since some legislation would be passed anyway, he was right to throw in with the marginally better Biden / Lugar as opposed to the 'Rose Garden pact' IWR. His position made all kinds of sense to me, and Kerry would have a much easier time protecting his flank from the left if he had done the same.

[mzmolly]

32. Biden - Lugar limited the agenda to WMD only.

Your correct on Dean's stance, but imagine if the agenda were limited to WMD, it would have meant that only inspections were approved initially. The use of force would have been approved only if Saddam had not allowed for inspections. Given the fact that Saddam allowed inspections, Biden/Lugar would have put Bush in a hell of a pickle.

For the record the ACLU supported Biden/Lugar and John Kerry did as well. Kerry was upset with Gep for the Rose Garden pact and I am almost certain if he weren't running for office, he'd have opposed the Rez that passed. :(

[jpgray]

34. OK, now here's Biden/Lugar as I understand it. :-)

You're right about the major difference, namely that the authorization would have been limited to disarming Iraq, whereas IWR authorized the president to use force to combat the more ambiguous 'war on terror'. That's the scary part--technically he could go to war in Syria with Congress's blessing without not needing to hold another vote at all.

I'm not sure that most analyses I've read say that B/L would have limited the authorization until after inspections were complete--I think most interpretations focus on the extra assurances given to Congress, and the limitations of the authorization, meant exclusively for disarming Iraq. But I'd probably have to read it again to be sure. :)

Don't want to reopen a can of worms, but note that Kerry did not vote for two of the Byrd/Levin amendments that would have greatly improved the IWR--I think those three votes were big mistakes, and I can't say for sure what his motivation was.

[mzmolly]

53. I think your correct in your assesment, but ...

Imagine the impact on Bush if he invaded and couldn't use the *liberation* meme? Imagine how he could explain kicking out inspectors when the goal was to find WMD?

It would have greatly changed the face of this war IMHO, and in the opinion of Bush and the ACLU. ;)

[jpgray]

58. Right--I don't know exactly how things would have gone with B/L

There certainly is an argument to be made that we could show Bush more clearly violated the trust of the American people and Congress, whereas with IWR it does seem more of a blank check.

[TeacherCreature]

35. Here is what he says

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

[jpgray]

36. I have a notebook somewhere filled with Dean quotes

He's been fairly consistent on the issue.

[leeroysphitz]

26. Howard Dean opposed to the war, BEFORE THE WAR

So did I...

[mzmolly]

78. Welcome Leeroy!

:toast:

[kiahzero]

30. He supported Biden-Lugar, as did Kerry

And under Biden-Lugar, if I understood it correctly, Bush still would have been able to go to war. Then again, pretty much nothing Congress did could have prevented Bush from going to war with enough lies.

[TeacherCreature]

37. No

Here is what he said right out loud in public.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/cdp0303/dean031503spt.html

[madfloridian]

42. That speech will go down in history along with the Feb. 17 one.

He never approved of this war, and people just take quotes out of context and make it sound like he would have voted for it.

What really scared me is when he said the world was no safer with Saddam captured, and Kerry said if he believed that he was not fit to be president. The others trounced him heartily, and now they are all using his words.

They could at least give him credit for them.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

43. It will never happen

They will all adopt them and heavily use the words but never give credit where credit is due. Also, no one will recognize the fact that he is still fighting to oust Bush even after all the backhanded nasty things were done to him by the very people he is helping.

[madfloridian]

69. They are both using his exact words now. I guess I am glad.

But I wish they would say..."as Howard Dean said so many times...." or something like that.

[Cha]

72. That's my Dean...he always said he would support the

nominee to the fullest and that's exactly what he is doing!

Dean is all over the place supporting the hell outta Kerry.

[kiahzero]

50. Which was five months after the vote we're talking about

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh011404.shtml
http://seby1689.dailykos.com/comments/2004/1/2/64522/51207/9?mode=alone;showrate=1
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaries/massachusetts/articles/2003/12/10/kerry_argues_that_gore_backed_wrong_howard_dean/
among others. Search for "Dean biden-lugar" and find even more.
There is no question that Dean supported Biden-Lugar.

[mzmolly]

54. There is also no question that Bush did not support Biden/Lugar.

See my post #46 for more information. :hi:

The ACLU also supported B/L for the record.

http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html

[kiahzero]

57. Yeah

So we're all agreed: Biden-Lugar would have been better than what passed.

[mzmolly]

60. Yes we are.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

46. Some info on Biden Lugar

"Bush to Congress: Don't tie my hands"
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/bush.iraq/

http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/10/02/bushwant.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021001-2.html

Q: Thank you, sir. There's a resolution being circulated by Senators Biden and Lugar, an alternative resolution on authorizing force in Iraq. What's wrong with that alternative?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I -- first of all, I appreciate all the members of Congress working to come up with a resolution. It sends a clear signal to the world that this country is determined to disarm Iraq, and thereby bring peace to the world. Members in both parties are working to get a consensus. Secondly -- and we'll continue to work with members of Congress. But I don't want to get a resolution which ties my hands, a resolution which is weaker than that which was passed out of the Congress in 1998. The Congress in 1998 passed a very strong resolution. They wisely recognized that Saddam Hussein is a threat -- was a threat in '98, and he's more of a threat four years later.

My question is, what's changed? Why would Congress want to weaken a resolution? This guy's had four years to lie, deceive, to arm up. He's had four years to thumb his nose at the world. He is stockpiling more weapons. So I'm not sure why members would like to weaken the resolution.

Compare the text of Biden/Lugar with the rez that passed.

Text of Biden/Lugar here.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/bidenlugar-resolution-093002.htm

Statement from the ACLU here:
http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html

[kiahzero]

56. You'll get no question from me that Biden-Lugar was a superior resolution

But I have no doubt in my mind that it would have stopped Bush from going to war.

In terms of quality of resolution:
Biden-Lugar > IWR that passed > IWR that was proposed by the Bush Administration = No resolution at all.

A resolution was necessary, in my mind, since without one, the Bush Administration would have tried to use the existing resolution authorizing Gulf War I, and if I recall the details correctly, there was a decent case for that. Any resolution that put limits on the White House was superior to no resolution at all.

[mzmolly]

59. If you compare the text of B/L with the rez that passed the differences

are pretty clear. Imagine Bush kicking out inspectors if the goal was to "disarm" Saddam?

However, today the "liberation" card is still working for him. He wouldn't have had that card with out the rez that passed (which had language about Saddam abusing the people of Iraq.) The language in the res that passed allowed Bush to cover all his bases. Imagine if we'd "tied his hands".

[kiahzero]

66. Legally and PR-wise, I don't think it would have mattered

Nothing in B/L would prevent Bush from pulling out inspectors. And, if I recall correctly, the war was still supposed to be about WMD when he did. So there's no reason to believe that the public reaction would have been different.

[mzmolly]

68. Actually Bush started the liberation meme before he invaded.

Remember the name of the mission was "Operation Iraqi Freedom." :eyes:

If the goal was to disarm, inspections were required. I dont see how he could explain his haste under such circumstances?

Bush said that Biden/Lugar would have "tied his hands". If he felt that way, perhaps that's all that was needed?

[kiahzero]

67. Evil Dupe

It said it didn't go through... odd.

[madfloridian]

45. Here is a stark contrast in words after Powell's UN speech last year.

SNIP..."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."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html

I remember that day here on DU. We were all laughing and joking about Powell's presentation. It was debunked almost before he was through speaking.
Kerry...."compelling" Edwards...."powerful"

DU...in laughter.
Dean got slammed that day as well. But he was right.

[mzmolly]

48. THERE IT IS!

:yourock:

[jpgray]

55. Good pick--I'd say it's consistent with their stances and votes

Powell's presentation was nothing short of ridiculous to me--having read Ritter's June 2000 article, the idea of cartoon Winnebagoes of Death and intelligence of weapons labs NOT shared with UN inspection teams was loony to the extreme. They would never have gotten away with it without our press--note that the statements of Kerry and Edwards are fully in line with the major media opinion on the presentation.

[madfloridian]

61. We agree on that.

I remember that day on DU. No one was rah rah then, not really. That is why I stand up so often for the fact that the war was wrong and a lie.

If I make people mad, so be it. I am mad at the health coverage we are going to be losing. I am mad at their lies on the economy, and I am mad about the dead soldiers.

I am mad that a couple of our kids who had invested wisely and in an informed manner lost a lot of money because there were so many lies about everything.

We agree on that.

[hansolsen]

73. Max Cleland is a Dean Democrat at heart

Here is what Max is saying today:

"Kerry aide: Bush 'flat out lied' on Iraq


That Kerry aide? Max Cleland

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/2004...

Cleland, a national co-chairman of Kerry's campaign, described the Bush administration's arguments that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda terrorists, as a "pack of lies." "

You can bet that old Max has the Dean spirit -- don't take bullshit lying down. Go after George Bush and lay the lumber to him.

I nominate Max as an honorary DU member. And I will be sorely disappointed if Kerry doesn't back him to the hilt.

[madfloridian]

74. Good for Max, and I also hope they will back him. They must.

But I fear they will not. They will play it cautiously.

[hansolsen]

81. Yes, and it may all be a strategy to let the surrogates deliver the heat

while John Kerry stays above the fray, looking presidential. And that may be smart, but my own gut instinct is that Kerry will need to stand toe to toe with Bush, before this is over, and pull no punches. He has not done that yet in regard to Iraq.

[CTLawGuy]

76. Rock on Molly!

:hi:

[mzmolly]

77. Thanks Darboy.

When one tries to revise Dean's valiant opposition to the war into some luke warm wishy wash, it gets the dander flyin. ;)

:hi:

[mandyky]

79. Pretty sad you have to qualify with "supporting Kerry"

All this belly aching about people bashing Kerry, I wish they'd let Dean be Dean! The sad truth is Rove was scared shitless of Dean because Dean had been consistent about Iraq.

By the way, I'm voting Kerry. I'll support him when he runs like a democrat.