Kerry accuses Dean of "duplicity" on Iraq

[NewYorkerfromMass]

Don't miss this in today's Times piece: "Nobody has paid attention to his duplicity," Mr. Kerry said of Dr. Dean. "We're going to have to point it out more, but he was allowed a complete free ride."

No elaboration in the article but it's pretty obvious to all the Kerry fans here: Dean is now parroting all the conventional positions on Saddam after acting like a pacifist who would have stayed out of Iraq. So now who's trying to have it both ways?

Yep, you go John- turn up the heat on the holier than thou Dean, he deserves it.

Kerry Still Dogged by Questions on Vote to Authorize Iraq War- NYTimes

[livinontheedge]

1. I may be wrong, but Dean has been crystal clear in his anti-war position.

Unless I missed something, Dean has always been against the war . . . before and after.

[Karmadillo]

6. This quote suggests it's not quite so clear

Finding out where any politician stands can be a difficult task, but it does appear Dean, at least into February, supported war against Iraq. His position discussed below seems pretty much like that of Kerry. The quote comes from a Salon premium article.

http://www.howardsmusings.com/2003/02/20/salon_on_the_campaign_trail_with_the_unbush.html

"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.

[Hep]

10. Why on earth

would you post a quote about the impending war without sharing the date it was made? Doesn't that make a difference? Is this before or after the inspectors went in?

[Karmadillo]

12. I thought writing "at least into February" made it clear when the

statement was made (February). If that was sufficiently confusing, I did include a link to the statement so one could confirm the date.

Also, inspectors had returned to Iraq before the statement was made. Thus, it would appear, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Dean's opposition to war is not quite as consistent as media generalizations might suggest.

[Hep]

13. Youre right, I'm sorry

Need to read more clearly.

Anyway, Dean has registered his problem with this war as being the wrong thing at the wrong time.

[Hep]

31. I take it back

I wasn't wrong, and I'm not sorry. What's the date of the quote? The exact date? Not the date of the post on the blog, not the date that the article was written. The date that the comment was made.

And then tell me the particular significance of Valentines Day WRT this topic.

[Karmadillo]

49. The article indicates the quote was made on February 6, 2003

Endure a brief ad if you'd like to confirm. Inspectors were in Iraq before that date if I'm not mistaken.

[Hep]

51. Yes.

Now, tell me what happened on 2/14.

[Karmadillo]

71. I know, but I've never responded all that well to school marms.

I'll let you make your revelation when you feel ready.

Regardless of the events of V Day, the point would still seem to be Dean wanted to disarm Saddam, and if the UN didn't "enforce" its resolutions, he would then favor unilateral action. Had that been the substance of the IWR, Bush would have happily used such logic to find the UN hadn't "enforced" its resolutions and would have launched his immoral war.

As I noted elsewhere, I simply don't see much distance between Kerry and Dean on the issue of war. Dean had a certain luxury Kerry didn't to play with his position. Understandable he took and is taking advantage of it, but I don't think that means I have to pretend the distinction is between Kerry the Warmonger and Dean the Prince of Peace. It's simply not that clear.

[Hep]

75. OK so you've changed your stance I guess

Because what started all of this was your claim that Dean's position was not so clear. If you are no longer making that claim, then there's no reason to continue.

[Karmadillo]

121. No. I said, in response to post #1, Dean appeared to support

unilateral war against Iraq into early February. This contrasted with the assertion Dean's position had been crystal clear in that he had been against the war before and after. So, I'm not changing my position.

You are probably correct, though, in that there is no reason to continue.

[Hep]

123. Nothing confusing at all

He laid out the conditions for which he would support war. He never felt those conditions were met.

What's so confusing about it?

[Karmadillo]

130. On Feb 6, he said Saddam MUST be disarmed (assuming

one believes the accuracy of the paraphrase in the Salon article). He wanted it done under UN auspices and if the UN failed to enforce its resolutions, he favored a unilateral US attack. The article indicates this wasn't stated as a hypothetical, but as his actual, then and there, position.

On Feb 25th, he apparently no longer favored a unilateral US attack.

It's not confusing because it appears to be a clear change in position.

On Edit: The "MUST" in the subject line is my emphasis. The must in the Salon paraphrase was "must".

[TLM]

139. The criteria wasn't met, and ignoring the reface won;t support your lie.

Dean said clearly that Iraq was a threat to their neighbors and needed to be disarmed... however he favored that being done by the UN by continuing the containment and inspection process.

Dean also said that if there was a treat to the US from Iraq, and IF the UN refused to act, only then would he support a unilaterial action to neutralize the threat to the US.

Why do you continue to act as if Dean's position on what he would do if Iraq WAS A THREAT TO THE US and IF the UN did not act, was his general position on the situation in Iraq?

[Karmadillo]

141. You forgot the "pants on fire" part. You can try to wish an

interpretation on to the Feb 6 statement all you want, but there was no caveat where Dean said unilateral action was justified only if there was imminent threat. Read the paraphrase. He said Saddam must be disarmed, it should be done by the UN, and if the UN didn't do it, the US, after a deadline, should take unilateral action.

In the Feb 25 interview you quote below, his position appears to have changed.

[sangh0]

143. "Saddam must be disarmed"

NOT "Saddam must be disarmed only if he's a direct and imminent threat to the US"

"Saddam must be disarmed"

[TLM]

148. No Saddam must be disarmed by the UN...

and if we find him to be a threat to the US and the Un doesn;t act, then we have justification for unilatieral action.

[sangh0]

151. Right! Dean supported a unilateral invasion

but he won't say that on the campaign trail anymore.

[TLM]

161. Only is Iraq posed a direct threat to the US....

which they did not...


Candidate Dean Rips Rivals' Stance on War With Iraq
Sunday February 9, 2003
By Thomas Beaumont, The Des Moines Register (February 9, 2003)
Dean says the Bush administration has failed to demonstrate that Iraq poses an imminent threat that justifies war without backing from the United Nations. Dean wasn't convinced by Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, in which Powell assailed Iraq for hindering weapons inspectors and flouting U.N. resolutions on eliminating weapons of mass destruction.


http://slate.msn.com/id/2086440/
In August 2002, he said he would support a unilateral invasion of Iraq if President Bush could "show that there's evidence has either atomic or biological weapons and can deliver." Dean ended up opposing the war on the grounds that Bush 1) should have worked through the United Nations to disarm Iraq (or to depose Saddam, if Iraq failed to comply with inspections); 2) should have given more consideration to the concerns of U.S. allies; and 3) never should have claimed that Iraq presented an imminent biological or nuclear threat to the United States.
After the war, Dean said, "I am not a pacifist. I believe there are times when pre-emptive force is justified, but there has to be an immediate threat, and there just wasn't in this case."



Now care to repeat your lie?

[sangh0]

167. Dean contradicts himself

and showing that Dean said "it requires an imminent threat" doesn't disprove that on other occasions Dean supported a unilateral invasion

[TLM]

170. Just keep digging... Dean position has been consistant.

only the spin being used in the attacks has changed.

If you were telling the truth, you could cite your quotes, provide whole quotes, and the question they were in response to.

But you can't.

[sangh0]

175. Dean supported a unilateral invasion of Iraq

and the links have been posted.

[TLM]

179. Then it should be very easy for you to cite those links.

I was able to easily site two media pieces that show you're lying...


Candidate Dean Rips Rivals' Stance on War With Iraq
Sunday February 9, 2003
By Thomas Beaumont, The Des Moines Register (February 9, 2003)
Dean says the Bush administration has failed to demonstrate that Iraq poses an imminent threat that justifies war without backing from the United Nations. Dean wasn't convinced by Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, in which Powell assailed Iraq for hindering weapons inspectors and flouting U.N. resolutions on eliminating weapons of mass destruction.




http://slate.msn.com/id/2086440/
In August 2002, he said he would support a unilateral invasion of Iraq if President Bush could "show that there's evidence has either atomic or biological weapons and can deliver." Dean ended up opposing the war on the grounds that Bush 1) should have worked through the United Nations to disarm Iraq (or to depose Saddam, if Iraq failed to comply with inspections); 2) should have given more consideration to the concerns of U.S. allies; and 3) never should have claimed that Iraq presented an imminent biological or nuclear threat to the United States.
After the war, Dean said, "I am not a pacifist. I believe there are times when pre-emptive force is justified, but there has to be an immediate threat, and there just wasn't in this case."

[sangh0]

181. Aksed and answered

the links have already posted. Even easy tasks, done repetitively, are a drain.

[TLM]

186. As usual, you can;t back up your claims...

If links have been posted... cite them. Otherwise, please make some more excuses so that readers will be totaly sure of your dishonesty here.

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

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

[TLM]

194. Now that you've dug yourself a nice hole.

Since you obviously can't post a link to support your lies.. why not just post the 2 paragraphs in the Salon piece that come before the one quoted in this thread?

One might ask why someone linked to a blog quote of one section of the salon piece, rather than the whole piece itself... here's why.



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.

From Washington come the barbs -- The New Republic calls it proof he's "not serious." ABC News' "The Note" wonders if he's backed himself into a corner. Dean has opposed the pending war because he didn't think President Bush had made his case. If he doesn't support military action now, the thinking goes, then he's just contradicting himself. Or, at the very least, he's been put in an untenable and -- for the moment, at least inside war-ready Washington, unpopular -- position.

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.



Now what were you saying about there being no imminent threat preface?

[sangh0]

197. Again, Dean supports a unilateral invasion

He contradicts himself in that one statement. He starts our saying it "must be...with a multilateral force", but then reverses course and endorses possible (but "regrettable") unilateral action.

It's funny how you think this statement supports you. On one hand, Dean claims the need for an imminent threat. But then he talks about taking unilateral action, and he doesn't state a requirement for imminent threat for that.

[sangh0]

199. Another example of Dean supporting unilateral war

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0210/05/cg.00.html

"HUNT: Governor, there's a sizable peace bloc among Democratic constituency, those that argue we've contained Saddam Hussein and we shouldn't send American men and women into harm's way.

Yet your position, as I understand it, is that you are a patient multilateral hawk, if you will, really indistinguishable from John Kerry. Is that fair?

GOV. HOWARD DEAN (D), VERMONT: I don't know what John Kerry's position is, because I've seen different positions at different times. But I can tell you what mine is. I believe that we may need to go into Iraq at some point. There's no question that Saddam is a threat, the question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not made the case.

And so we have time to build a multilateral coalition. But I think we're much better off going in with our allies and the United Nations than we are going it alone."

Note how he doesn't rule out unilateral action. He justs says that multilateral is "better"

And as far as there being enough time to build a coalition, that's exactly the same as Kerry's statements at the time.

[TLM]

206. Perfect example of how dishonest you are on this...

You say this is an example of Dean supporting unilaterial war... but in the quote Dean clearly says...


Yet your position, as I understand it, is that you are a patient

multilateral

hawk, if you will, really indistinguishable from John Kerry. Is that fair?

GOV. HOWARD DEAN (D), VERMONT: I don't know what John Kerry's position is, because I've seen different positions at different times. But I can tell you what mine is. I believe that we may need to go into Iraq at some point.

There's no question that Saddam is a threat, the question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not made the case.

And so we have time to build a multilateral coalition. But I think we're much better off going in with our allies and the United Nations than we are going it alone."


Dean is very clearly advocating working with the UN and not "going it alone." Dean makes the point clearly and directly that the immediacy needed to justfy a unilaterial attack is not present. Yet you claim this is proof he advocates unilaterial action?

[TLM]

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

Dean already stated the need for there to be an imminent threat, and was quoted as doing such in the paragraph prior to the one you're saying had no imminent threat requierment.


Dean;s overriding term has been no unilaterial action unless there is an imminent threat. You can lie all you want, but that fact is supported even by the salon piece.

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

[FubarFly]

202. Ah, finally...

the quote in context. Taken directly after Colin Powell's presentation.
And even then Dean says the case hasn't been made.

The subsequent paraphrasing inadequately represents Dean's position.


"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."

Unilateral "action" does not mean unilateral war.

To say that "action" equals "invasion" without backing it up with further quotes or facts is a lie.

[sangh0]

209. LOL!

SO what was this "action"? Are you suggesting that after the inspectors had been in, and the UN had negotiated with Saddam and failed, that this "action" would have been something besides military action? If not war, then what? More negotiations?

[TLM]

214. Could be more sanctions... could be targeted bombing of weapons sites

but the point is that your claim that Dean supported a unilaterial invasion, without the preface of there being a threat to the US, is clearly false.

Even the salon piece points out the threat issue was the reason Dean rejected Bush push for invasion.

[FubarFly]

217. Probably not.

But I am not going to assume it means all out war or unilateral invasion without at least listening to a follow up in context.

[sangh0]

227. Probably not is an understatement

"More sanctions"???? What else would we have sanctioned, food and medicine?

I really would like to hear about "actions" that are not an invasion. Certainly, Dean must have mentioned them at some point, or else open himself up to charges that his words weren't being backed up with a plan.

These unspecified "actions" sound like Ahnuld's unspecified "actions" to fix CA's budget problems.

[FubarFly]

240. If you have any more information on Dean's

unspecified "actions" please feel free to share.

[sangh0]

246. Moi?

You seem to think Dean's proposed actions are something other than an invasion, but strangely enough, you can't think of one reasonable alternative to invasion.

[FubarFly]

250. I've already named one.

Pay attention.

[TLM]

264. I named several... like bombing weapons sites.

[FubarFly]

155. Does "disarmed " mean " I support the invasion?"

No. The inspectors were adequately disarming Saddam. Dean supported disarming through the inspections. If the inspectors were rubuffed, AND it was proved that Saddam was an imminent threat to the US, ONLY THEN would he support military action which could mean bombing, but not necessarily an all out war. If in turn the threat escalated and it HAD to come to war, then Dean would prefer it be done with a multilateral coalition under UN auspices. A unilateral invasion would be the last possible option, ONLY if it was absolutely necessary, and ONLY after all other diplomatic solutions had failed. Since Dean knew as well as any self-respecting DU'er at the time that b*sh would never meet ANY of these conditions, it is save to conclude that Dean was consistantly against the war.

Next please.

[sangh0]

159. No, but Dean supported a unilateral invasion

after first giving Saddam 60 days to comply.

The inspectors were adequately disarming Saddam. Dean supported disarming through the inspections

Deans statement is support of a unilateral invasion came before the inspectors issued a report.

AND it was proved that Saddam was an imminent threat to the US, ONLY THEN would he support military action which could mean bombing, but not necessarily an all out war

Those requirements came later. When Dean first called for a 60-day deadline, there was no requirement for an imminent threat.

Dean would prefer it be done with a multilateral coalition under UN auspices

This statement about Dean's preferences show that Dean would also support a unilateral invasion. Dean merely "preferred" multi-lateral, and btw, the invasion of Iraq WAS multi-lateral. Several nations participated.

[TLM]

162. More lies... here's proof from AUG 2002.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086440/
In August 2002, he said he would support a unilateral invasion of Iraq if President Bush could "show that there's evidence has either atomic or biological weapons and can deliver." Dean ended up opposing the war on the grounds that Bush 1) should have worked through the United Nations to disarm Iraq (or to depose Saddam, if Iraq failed to comply with inspections); 2) should have given more consideration to the concerns of U.S. allies; and 3) never should have claimed that Iraq presented an imminent biological or nuclear threat to the United States.

After the war, Dean said, "I am not a pacifist. I believe there are times when pre-emptive force is justified, but there has to be an immediate threat, and there just wasn't in this case."

[sangh0]

171. Only half the story

The fact that Dean made statements requiring proof of an imminent threat does not disprove the charge tht on other occassions, Dean made statements in support of a unilateral invasion even if there was no proof of an imminent threat.

[FubarFly]

164. Please post the quote in context where Dean said

he supported a unilateral invasion if Saddam didn't comply within 60 days.

[sangh0]

169. Asked and answered

in another post in this thread

[FubarFly]

177. I've read the thread.

And unless you can show me otherwise in no post can we directly quote Dean as saying he would support a unilateral war if Saddam didn't disarm in sixty days. If you are talking about a hypothetical situation, then the evidence has already been presented to refute your claims. So please, show proof that Dean wasn't talking about a hypothetical situation.

[sangh0]

182. It's been posted

and if you can't find it, I am still under no obligation to you.

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

189. Another name-caller

from the "Angry Dean" contingent

[TLM]

176. The closest thing to this is that Dean said...

was before the bombs started dropping in March, that Bush should have to go back to the UN and seek a 30-60 day deadline for letting inspectors in and disarming, prior to any military action.

The Dean Bashers, freaked out over the new poll numbers, are on the offensive.

[TLM]

147. You are the one mixing two answers and ignoring the preface...

Dean position was consistant... Dean's quotes were consistant on the subject.

You are taking a paraphrase of half an answer, not including the question asked, and trying to present it as if that was his position in general.

But please by all means post the whole quote from Dean, and the question.

[TLM]

113. THis is very misleading....

"Regardless of the events of V Day, the point would still seem to be Dean wanted to disarm Saddam, and if the UN didn't "enforce" its resolutions, he would then favor unilateral action."

ONLY IF THERE WAS PROOF OF A THREAT TO THE US, WHICH DEAD SAID OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT THERE WAS NOT, AND THAT BUSH HAD NOT MADE THE CASE.



From a PBS interview on Feb 25th.


I think there's a high threshold for a unilateral attack, and the United States has traditionally set the moral tone for foreign policy in the world. My view of this is since Iraq is not an imminent danger to the United States, the United States should not unilaterally attack Iraq. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. They do not have much of a nuclear program, if they have one at all left. And they have not... there is not any particular evidence that is convincing that they have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. All those three things would constitute, in my view, a reason to defend our country by unilaterally attacking. But those are not the cases. Sec. Powell and the president have not made those cases well.

We believe... I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, and they are a threat to many nations in the region, but not to the United States. Therefore in my view, the United States ought not to attack unilaterally.



The quote that people keep tossing around that they say shows Dean being inconsistant on this, is a statement about what he would do IF Iraq DID pose imminent danger to the United States... which as you see above, he did not feel iraq posed.

[Karmadillo]

125. I'm not sure it's misleading. Dean supported disarming Saddam

on February 6, 2003, and if the UN didn't do so, he apparently favored unilateral US action. On Feb 25th, he no longer favored US unilateral action. This would seem to be exactly what I was saying in that his position has changed and that his opposition to the war has not always been crystal clear.

[Hep]

128. And on 2/14

Chief U.N. arms inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei report to the Security Council that to date they have found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but banned weapons remain unaccounted for.

[Karmadillo]

133. And this may have been the reason he changed his position

regarding unilateral war (or there may have been other political considerations--I don't know), but it would seem fairly clear he changed his position. Thus, it would seem inaccurate to say he was always against the war, unilateral or otherwise, because into February, he appeared to support the disarming of Saddam (over tea?) by the UN and if the UN failed to take action to disarm him, he supported unilateral war.

On Edit: Typo

[sangh0]

135. Right

And now, he makes no mention of his previous potential support for a unilateral invasion because that would interfere with the desired perception that Dean consistently opposed the war.

[TLM]

144. You continue to mix two different answers based on two sets of

circumstances.


"he appeared to support the disarming of Saddam (over tea?) by the UN"

Yes Dean supported the UN disarming Saddam through the policy of inspection and containment.


"and if the UN failed to take action to disarm him, he supported unilateral war."

Nope, that was only if certain criteria had been met, namely that saddam was a threat to the US and the UN refused to act.

You are taking what was basically a contingency plan for what to do IF saddam was a threat to the US and IF the UN did not act, and trying to present it as Dean position based on the criteria that existed on feb 6th.

It is wholly dishonest.

[Karmadillo]

203. Wholly dishonest? Sure. How could anyone reading the Salon article

referred to in post #2 think Dean supported unilateral US action if the UN failed to enforce its resolutions and disarm Saddam? Oh. Wait. They might think that if actually read the article question since that's what the article says Dean said. Before you again accuse me of lying or being wholly dishonest, maybe you might want to read it, too. I realize your fervor will prevent you from agreeing with me on the merits, but it might clue you in enough to realize it's possible your position isn't quite as impregnable as you imagine.

On Edit: Fixed subject line.

[TLM]

265. I have read it, ALL OF IT, including the line you keep ignoring...

which came just before that statement where Dean says that Powell didn't demonstrate the imminent threat to the US that would justify such unilaterial action.


"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. "



What is so dishonest is that you continue to ignore the conditions which prefaced Dean's statement about when he would support unilateral action.

Dean said if there was an imminent threat to the US AND the UN refused to act, ONLY THEN would unilateral action be justified. You ignore those conditions that Dean laid out and dishonestly claim that Dean supported unilateral action based on the situation as it was, which is a lie.

[TLM]

136. Dean supported the UN continuing the polict of inspection and disarming

"on February 6, 2003, and if the UN didn't do so, he apparently favored unilateral US action. On Feb 25th, he no longer favored US unilateral action."


He did not support unilaterial action to disarm Saddam unless there was a real and direct threat to the US, AND the UN refused to act.

You're taking two parts of an answer and acting like they are difference stand alone positions on the war.

Dean was asked under what circumstances he would support unilaterial action... he said if there was a threat, and the UN did not act, then unilaterial action would be necessary to defend the US, and he'd give saddam 60 days to destroy any weapons, and if he did not then we'd have to take unilaterial action to disarm him.

Yet you are acting like Dean said he supported unilaterial action based on the circumstances that were the case on feb 6th... you removed the criteria that preface his statement. The fact is that Dean's comments were prefaced with cirteria that HAD NOT AND HAS NOT hapened.


It is like you said, "I would shoot someone, but only if they were threatening my life and if I have to do it to defend myself, I will." Then I take your statement and say "Karm explained how he wanted to shoot people, he said, "I would shoot someone..." then he contined, "I have to do it....'"

[sangh0]

140. Dean also supported a unilateral invasion

and he did NOT qualify that support with a need for a "real and direct threat to the US"

"I believe that we may need to go into Iraq at some point. There's no question that Saddam is a threat"

TLM continues to falsely claim that Dean required a direct threat to the US and ignores that this requirement came later.

[TLM]

157. Site your quote with a link... and I'll prove

that Dean repeatedly laid out the direct threat crieteria as being a requierment for any US unilaterial action.

Candidate Dean Rips Rivals' Stance on War With Iraq
Sunday February 9, 2003
By Thomas Beaumont, The Des Moines Register (February 9, 2003)

Dean says the Bush administration has failed to demonstrate that Iraq poses an imminent threat that justifies war without backing from the United Nations. Dean wasn't convinced by Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, in which Powell assailed Iraq for hindering weapons inspectors and flouting U.N. resolutions on eliminating weapons of mass destruction.

[sangh0]

160. It's been posted. Asked and answered

And no one is saying that Dean didn't list requirements. The argument is that Dean has also stated his support for a unilateral invasion without those conditions.

[TLM]

163. As expected... no link... because you can't post what doesn;t exist

you can not cite a quote of Dean saying what you claim, ebcause all you have is some 3rd party summary of a half a statement made in respons to a question you won't include.


http://slate.msn.com/id/2086440/
In August 2002, he said he would support a unilateral invasion of Iraq if President Bush could "show that there's evidence has either atomic or biological weapons and can deliver." Dean ended up opposing the war on the grounds that Bush 1) should have worked through the United Nations to disarm Iraq (or to depose Saddam, if Iraq failed to comply with inspections); 2) should have given more consideration to the concerns of U.S. allies; and 3) never should have claimed that Iraq presented an imminent biological or nuclear threat to the United States.
After the war, Dean said, "I am not a pacifist. I believe there are times when pre-emptive force is justified, but there has to be an immediate threat, and there just wasn't in this case."

[sangh0]

172. Asked and answered

in another post in this thread

[TLM]

183. link... quote... or just more BS?

why can't you cite a link?


Took me all of about 5 minutes on google to prove you're lying by finding a souce from months before and a few days after this salon piece.

Why can't you find one to support your claims?

Candidate Dean Rips Rivals' Stance on War With Iraq
Sunday February 9, 2003
By Thomas Beaumont, The Des Moines Register (February 9, 2003)
Dean says the Bush administration has failed to demonstrate that Iraq poses an imminent threat that justifies war without backing from the United Nations. Dean wasn't convinced by Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, in which Powell assailed Iraq for hindering weapons inspectors and flouting U.N. resolutions on eliminating weapons of mass destruction.





http://slate.msn.com/id/2086440/
In August 2002, he said he would support a unilateral invasion of Iraq if President Bush could "show that there's evidence has either atomic or biological weapons and can deliver." Dean ended up opposing the war on the grounds that Bush 1) should have worked through the United Nations to disarm Iraq (or to depose Saddam, if Iraq failed to comply with inspections); 2) should have given more consideration to the concerns of U.S. allies; and 3) never should have claimed that Iraq presented an imminent biological or nuclear threat to the United States.
After the war, Dean said, "I am not a pacifist. I believe there are times when pre-emptive force is justified, but there has to be an immediate threat, and there just wasn't in this case."

[sangh0]

210. Asked an answered

in another post in this thread

[TLM]

218. No it wasn;t... you've not been able to cite one source

that didn;t mention the need for there to be a direct and immediate threat to the US in order to justify any unilaterial action.


Even the salon piece shows that Dean rejected Bush call for war because he didn;t make the case for an imminent threat.

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

[sangh0]

230. The Dean quote show his supprt for unilateral action

but he keeps saying he was opposed to unilateral action.

Inconsistent

[mzmolly]

254. Nope, he was *opposed* to unilateral action under the circumstances

and you know it.

[TLM]

266. Repeating your lie, isn't going to make it true.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=583514&mesg_id=585809&page=

Right there you take Dean specificaly advocating multilaterial action through the UN, and blatantly lie by claiming he supports unilaterial action.

You can not produce so much as one quote to support your claims, even the salon piece says, "Dean isn't sold. It doesn't indicate that Iraq is an imminent threat, he says. "

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. good point about media image of Dean vs. reality

If Howard were indeed so consistent in his view on Iraq then it was disingenuous that he made no effort to dispell the notion he was an outright peacenik. However, that's not the case. The fact is he never had a clear plan of his own.

[Hep]

15. Laughable

YOu guys are great!

How many speeches did you attend? How much have you REALLY paid attention to Dean's campaign? Because I've been deeply involved for many months now. I never got the impression that he was a dove. And he never failed to make clear his differences of position.

I just think it's hilarious that you go off on these tirades against a man you apparently nerver bothered to learn about or study up on. Almost as hilarious as the notion that you think you know more about him based on others rhetoric than his own words!

Every day you post your antiDean rantings, and every day you look more pathetic for it. But then, you support the "less horrible than bush" candidate, so I don't expect a whole lot of integrity anyway.

[sangh0]

19. Cheap argument

Hep, do you really believe that someone MUST attend one of Dean's speeched in order to hold a valid opinion?

Also, the issue isn't whether or not Dean is a dove. It's whether Dean was as against the idea of military action againsat Saddam as he is now claiming to be. The facts show that Dean would have supported military action IF certain conditions were met. It turns our that those conditions are remarkably similar to the ones Kerry has been speaking about for years.

[Hep]

Cheap? HA!

Hep, do you really believe that someone MUST attend one of Dean's speeched in order to hold a valid opinion?

Nope. I just think that some people here *cough* subscribe to the IDIOTIC notion that they can see more from the outside than people who are inside. These people come here with these ridiculous claims like Dean supporters are delusional, that we think this about him or that about him as if it NEVER occurred to you to ASK us! Not that you care enough, mind you. KNOWING what people think only inhibits your ability to make false claims. If you don't know any better, if you remain IGNORANT, then you can claim to be WRONG in the end rather than be held up as LIAR.

Also, the issue isn't whether or not Dean is a dove.

Maybe not for you, but you might want to reread the post. Lemme quote the pertinant text for you:

"he made no effort to dispell the notion he was an outright peacenik"

Actually, I heard him say NUMEROUS, and I mean NUMEROUS times that he SUPPORTED the gulf war and the war in Afghanistan. Would a peacenik do that? I heard him say FIRST HAND that he was not against military action, but rather that he saw this as the wrong thing at the wrong time. I've been on phone calls with him, I've talked to him in person. And you think you know more about him than people within the campaign. It's a friigin joke.

It's whether Dean was as against the idea of military action againsat Saddam as he is now claiming to be. The facts show that Dean would have supported military action IF certain conditions were met. It turns our that those conditions are remarkably similar to the ones Kerry has been speaking about for years.

You know what? Dean has NEVER said anything different than what you said. Had circumstances been different, Dean might have supported military action. Do you know how I know this? I HEARD HIM SAY IT.

So now you know the truth. You can't claim ignorance. If you perpetuate the lie then you will be a LIAR because onw you KNOW the truth.

[sangh0]

38. Then that's what you should say

If not attending any of his speeches is not the issue, then why did you bring it up? And as far as the "idiotic notion" goes, IMO sometimes the outside IS the best place to develop an objective opinion. Sometimes, being inside can blind one to some of the facts. This notion is not as "idiotic" as you make it out to be. It's not a rule of physics. Sometimes an insider does know more. But sometimes, the outsiders do.

Actually, I heard him say NUMEROUS, and I mean NUMEROUS times that he SUPPORTED the gulf war and the war in Afghanistan. Would a peacenik do that?

You're missing the point. The argument wasn't that Dean promoted himself as a peacenik. It's that when the media started portraying Dean as a peacenik-type (I remember in particular a story about Dean's support from "Birkenstock liberals") Dean did nothing to refute it. This from a campaign that prides itself of quickly reacting to attacks and mistatements.

Dean has NEVER said anything different than what you said.

That's not true. Dean has said he wouldn't support a unilateral war. At other times, he has said he would, and the conditions under which he would have supported a unilateral war are similar to Kerry's, and yet, he says his position is much different than Kerry's. Kerry points out that Kerry's supposedly "pro-war" position is remarkably similar to Deans "opposition to unilateral war"

[Hep]

47. You're still squawking about speeches?

What's not clear to you? You know what, you will nevre convince a person who supports dean that you know more about them than they do. Keep trying. I find it hilarious EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU DO IT.

You're missing the point. The argument wasn't that Dean promoted himself as a peacenik. It's that when the media started portraying Dean as a peacenik-type (I remember in particular a story about Dean's support from "Birkenstock liberals") Dean did nothing to refute it. This from a campaign that prides itself of quickly reacting to attacks and mistatements.

Hold on! I have to stop laughing for a second. Unbelievable! So, how do you recommend a person refute such a perception ASIDE FROM SAYING IT OUT LOUD IN FRONT OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE? I give you my first hand experience of hearing him say the words and you reply by saying he never said it! WOW! Seriously, I haven't laughed like that since I saw this website:

http://www.heavengallery.com/fenslerfilms/

That's not true. Dean has said he wouldn't support a unilateral war. At other times, he has said he would, and the conditions under which he would have supported a unilateral war are similar to Kerry's, and yet, he says his position is much different than Kerry's. Kerry points out that Kerry's supposedly "pro-war" position is remarkably similar to Deans "opposition to unilateral war"

Youre refusal to pay any attention to any time line, to use any direct quotes, to regard context, all serve to illustrate how desperate you are to make a point that doesn't exist. But thanks for trying, you really brought light to a depressing day.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Hep]

63. SO far off topic!

I don't have to show you where you claim to knw more about Dean than I do. When you make these FALSE allegations against him, that's exactly what you are doing. You claim he never refuted the perception that he isa peacenik. You would have to think you know more about him than me to make that claim, which is patently and, as I've noted, FALSE. Othrewise, where is the logic behind making it to me?

My link had lots of other links. I don't know if you ever watched the GI Joe cartoons when you were young, so you might not get them anyway. It's alright, don't worry.


And you could use that description on Dean. Dean looks at the IWR vote and says "They voted for war" Dean refuses to pay any attention to any time line, to use direct quotes, to regard context, and this serves to illustrate how desperate Dean is to make a dishonest point. If you think I'm using dishonest tactics, then you should also be thinking that Dean uses dishonest tactics.

Uh, what does the W stand for in IWR? And what was Kerry's official vote?

IF I could post the ansers upside down at the bpottom of the post, I would, but I'll just give you the answers right here. The W stands for WAR, and Kerry's vote was YES.

It's a matter of congressional record. There need not be quotes, you know the timeline, and apparently your context is, "He only voted yes because they let him make it 'less horrible'".

[sangh0]

69. ..

You claim he never refuted the perception that he is peacenik

One speech is not a refutation.

My link had lots of other links.

Wow! How about you give a link that points to what you want me to see, and not a link to all sort of other links?

Uh, what does the W stand for in IWR? And what was Kerry's official vote?

And there you go again! Not the slightest effort is made to consider any context. One vote, and just the vote. Nothing else can be considered. Context not allowed!!

Unless it's Dean. Then there can't be enough context.

IF I could post the ansers upside down at the bpottom of the post, I would, but I'll just give you the answers right here. The W stands for WAR, and Kerry's vote was YES.

Ahh, I just love all that context, and all that nuance.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

89. Still smoking?

I guess that's your idea of an argument.

[Hep]

91. No, it's my idea of a subject line

I would expect you to know the difference.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[Hep]

124. Why anyone would

rely on a media portrayal in the first place is BEYOND me.

[TLM]

119. Same desperate Dean bashing...

"The facts show that Dean would have supported military action IF certain conditions were met."

Yeah like Iraq actualy being a threat to the US, having WMD, or working with terrorists.


" It turns our that those conditions are remarkably similar to the ones Kerry has been speaking about for years."

Yeah the difference is that when those conditions were not met, Dean maintained his opposition to that war, while Kerry flip floped and voted for it.

[sangh0]

131. typically untrue Dean response

Dean said he thought Saddam did have WMD's.

Yeah the difference is that when those conditions were not met,

The conditions WERE met. Dean said Saddam has WMD"s and that he needed to be disarmed

[TLM]

166. The conditions were not met...

Saddam did not have the weapons, and wasn;t a threat to the US.


http://slate.msn.com/id/2086440/
In August 2002, he said he would support a unilateral invasion of Iraq if President Bush could "show that there's evidence has either atomic or biological weapons and can deliver." Dean ended up opposing the war on the grounds that Bush 1) should have worked through the United Nations to disarm Iraq (or to depose Saddam, if Iraq failed to comply with inspections); 2) should have given more consideration to the concerns of U.S. allies; and 3) never should have claimed that Iraq presented an imminent biological or nuclear threat to the United States.
After the war, Dean said, "I am not a pacifist. I believe there are times when pre-emptive force is justified, but there has to be an immediate threat, and there just wasn't in this case."

[sangh0]

173. Dean said he though Saddam had WMD's

He said we must "disarm Saddam", which is a curious to thing to say if Dean thought Saddam didn't have the arms.

[TLM]

193. Again you mix two issues....

which Dean was very clear on...

He thought Saddam did have some weapons, which meant he was a threat to his neighbors, not the US. Because fo that Dean supported the continuing UN policy of containment and inspection to disarm saddam...

However he did not support the US doing this unilaterialy unless there was a threat to the US and the UN refused to act.

[sangh0]

201. Saddam's neighbors

supply our oil, and Saddam's ability to threaten his neighbors with these weapons does represent a direct threat to the security of the US. If Dean wants to ignore these facts, then he isn't fit to be President.

However he did not support the US doing this unilaterialy unless there was a threat to the US and the UN refused to act.

There was a threat to the US, and the UN would not vote to support an invasion. Dean's conditions were filled. It's just that his supporters refuse to look at all of the facts. The consider the fact that Saddam had no missiles that could reach the US, but they ignore the threat these weapons posed to the US by way of it's oil supply.

And say what you will about the immorality of our ME policies, it will not change the fact that a disruption in our energy supplies DOES, in fact, threaten our security.

[TLM]

267. LOL! Wow you are so desperate.... just sad.

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


There was no imminent threat to the US, either directly or indirectly through threats oil producing nations.



There was a possible threat, or a potential threat, but neither of those would justify unilaterial action according to Dean.

Let me know when you come up with an augement based on facts, and not just your desperate need to pimp Kerry by attacking Dean.

[dccindy]

165. Thanks for the clarification

I too find Dean's words consistent. I think the Kerry people are getting pretty desperate with this one. They have a lot to talk about with all the flip flops we have seen Kerry make.

[TLM]

168. Look at the latest zogby poll to see why Kerry folks are acting like this.

www.zogby.com

Dean Soars into Huge Lead in New Hampshire Now Leads Kerry 40-17 Among Likely Voters; Clark and Edwards in Distant 3rd --New Zogby Poll


Former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean has opened a large lead over his closest challenger in New Hampshire according to the newest poll by Zogby International.

Dean earned 40%, compared to Massachusetts Senator John Kerry’s 17%. None of the other candidates have exceeded single digits in the polling. Retired General Wesley Clark and North Carolina Senator John Edwards are tied for third with 6% each.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[Hep]

120. They don't care

They don't care at all. They'll continue to make the claim.

[sangh0]

132. Dean contradicts himself again

While he now claims that Bush wasn't being honest, he has also said:

LiberalOasis: What do you think were the motivations for the Bush Administration to go to war with Iraq?

Howard Dean: I can't speak to his motives, because I can't read his mind.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, though, and presume that he believes Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to our security.

Of course, in and of itself, Saddam’s departure is a good thing

So tell me again how Dean made no effort to dispell the notion he was an outright peacenik?

Dean claims to be opposed to unilateral war, and never mentions that he would have supported a unilateral invasion if it was preceded by a 60 day deadline

[mzmolly]

48. This quote appears to be paraphrased...

"As I've said about eight times today," *end quote*

he says, annoyed -- *begin paraphrase* 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.

[Karmadillo]

53. It does appear paraphrased. I assume it is an accurate paraphrase,

but it clearly isn't a quote. I checked the Salon article and it's the same way there.

Thanks for pointing it out as I hadn't noticed it before. I apologize for my mischaracterization. Not sure it changes the impact, though. His position in the paraphrase is not all that different from what one might expect Kerry to say. Regarding both candidates (and neither are my first choice), I don't think either of them would have dragged us in to the war with Iraq had they been President.

[mzmolly]

64. I think it's innaccurate.

But I fully agree with you here..."Kerry is my second choice, but there is no denying the two men had very different positions all along."

Bravo to that!

[Hep]

65. The impact is moot if you are willing to be objective

There is nothing wrong with it even if it is a direct quote. There's nothing confusing about it at all.

Why? FEBRUARY 14

[TLM]

108. To what question was this statement in response to?

The question Dean was asked was if there was ANY circumstance in which he would support the war... and he was quite clear that IF we have proof of a threat to the US, AND IF the Un refused to act, only then would we be justified in taking this action.

What Kerry is doing is taking Dean's answer to a question about what would have to happen in order for him to support action against Iraq, and acting as if that was his position on the war, when in fact the criteria Dean laid out to preface what he said about the 30-60 day dealine, wasn't included and hadn;t happened.



Here is an interview Dean gave back in febuary, where Dean clarly explains his position on Iraq.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/dean_2-25.html

GWEN IFILL: You have said that the president has not made his case for leading an attack or starting an attack in Iraq. Why don't you make your case against that for us?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: Sure. I think there's a high threshold for a unilateral attack, and the United States has traditionally set the moral tone for foreign policy in the world. My view of this is since Iraq is not an imminent danger to the United States, the United States should not unilaterally attack Iraq. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. They do not have much of a nuclear program, if they have one at all left. And they have not... there is not any particular evidence that is convincing that they have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. All those three things would constitute, in my view, a reason to defend our country by unilaterally attacking. But those are not the cases. Sec. Powell and the president have not made those cases well.

We believe... I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, and they are a threat to many nations in the region, but not to the United States. Therefore in my view, the United States ought not to attack unilaterally. The United Nations should disarm Saddam, and we should be a part of that effort. The risk for us to unilaterally attack Iraq is that other nations will adopt our policy, and I can very easily see perhaps the Chinese saying one day, "well, Taiwan presents an imminent threat, and therefore we have the right to attack Taiwan." What we do matters, and morals matter in foreign policy.

GWEN IFILL: Governor, by my count, you just used some version of the word "unilateral" six times in that response. If... the president would argue he is not favoring a unilateral attack, that he has support from Britain and other nations and is now going to the United Nations for a second resolution. Under what circumstances could you imagine a multilateral attack?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.

GWEN IFILL: Governor, you have criticized other Democrats in the race for seeming to support the president by voting for the use-of-force resolution last October in Congress, yet you say that you support... you would support... you'd be willing to support a United Nations-backed effort to disarm Saddam Hussein. How is that different from what the people in Congress voted for?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: What they voted for was to allow the president of the United States to attack Iraq unilaterally without going back to Congress. So the four folks that I'm running against who are from Congress all voted to give the president that power. The objection that I have... the greatest objection is for the folks that voted for it and then went to Iowa and California and pretended they are against the war. That doesn't wash. We're not going to elect a president of the United States but nominating somebody who says one thing and does something else, and appears to be willing to say whatever it takes to become president. That's a guarantee that we won't beat George Bush that way. We have got to stick to our guns. We've got to defend our positions, and we've got to be proud of our positions.

GWEN IFILL: Are you supportive of the second resolution, which is now apparently making its way to the United Nations Security Council?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: Sure. Look, I don't have a problem with the second resolution because the United Nations will ultimately make the decision about how Saddam is to be disarmed. My own preference is that we give the inspectors some more time-- we're making some progress there-- but that if Saddam refuses, for example, to destroy the missiles as the United Nations has demanded, then I think the United Nations is going to have an obligation to disarm him. I think our role in this has been pretty awful. We really have made it more difficult for the United States to carry out its policies by alienating practically everyone, including our friends, in regard to this matter of Iraq, and I think that's a mistake. I think it would have been a lot easier for us had the president not last July essentially declared that we were going to go in, and if people didn't like it, that was too bad for them. That was the wrong way to handle it.

GWEN IFILL: It sounds more like you disagree with our approach to this war than to the idea of waging war.

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: We need... well, I disagree with unilateral war. At this point, I don't think it's justified and I don't think the case has been made. I don't disagree with disarming Saddam. I support that. I think the proper folks to do that are the United Nations, and we should be part of that.

GWEN IFILL: Is Saddam Hussein, in your opinion, an immediate threat now?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: No. If he were, I would advocate unilateral action. That's... the whole point I'm trying to make is unless he possesses a way of attacking the United States, either by giving weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, which the president has not made the case for, or by having a nuclear program, then he's not an imminent threat.

Here is my biggest concern: North Korea is about to go nuclear on this president's watch, because he refuses to discuss the matter with them. That is a far greater danger to the United States, and frankly, far more likely to lead us into war sooner than any danger posed by Iraq. And of course, the greatest danger remains al-Qaida, which this president is not committing the resources to, is not dealing with the Saudis' funding of terror and the Saudis' funding of schools which teach small children in Islamic countries to hate Americans, Christians and Jews, which is the next, second generation of terrorists and suicide bombers. The important problems, the real important threats to the United States-al-Qaida and North Korea-- are not being dealt with. They are being put on the back burner because of this president's obsession with unilateral disarmament of Iraq, which is not a threat to the United States.

GWEN IFILL: Pardon me. So if you say that if you were president, you would back-burner Iraq and put North Korea on the front burner?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: My strategy for dealing with Iraq, as president, would be to contain them, to continue to push the United Nations to disarm them, and then to open talks with North Korea with the impetus... I have a four-point plan which I outlined last weekend at Drake University, and it essentially includes beginning bilateral talks, having an interim solution where both parties agree that, "A," the United States will not attack North Korea, and "B," that the North Koreans will not develop nuclear weapons during the talks; and then beginning the process of the five-power talks including South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, and the United States to deal with this threat. That is a very serious threat. Under no circumstances can North Korea be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, and they are about to do it because this president isn't paying enough attention.

[Guaranteed]

233. Dammit, I've been over this with people.

You want quotes? I'll give you quotes....that was 2/20/03, right?

""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," said Dean. "
---

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

-Dean 02/17/03

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/17/sprj.irq.democrats.iowa.ap/index.html

And here's another:

"Dean got an ovation by blasting Bush's threat to disarm Iraq by force, calling it "a unilateral action against a country that doesn't present an immediate threat." " -Dean 02/27/03

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2003-02-27-dems_x.htm

----
These comments were made during the most intense pressure to support the war was felt by those who were anti-war...when it had become clear that we were going to war, and that 70-80% of people supported it.

Kerry was still supporting the war at this time.

[TLM]

268. Thanks BGL...

looks like between you and me and a few others, we've got about 20 quotes from Dean from that month...all consistantly saying the same thing.


Even the salon piece that is quoted in the start of this thread says, "Dean isn't sold. It doesn't indicate that Iraq is an imminent threat, he says."



Dean Soars into Huge Lead in New Hampshire Now Leads Kerry 40-17 Among Likely Voters; Clark and Edwards in Distant 3rd --New Zogby Poll

[mzmolly]

286. EXACTLY.... Can you say 'revisionists'???

I knew you could...

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. I think the point is to nominate Kerry over Dean

if that concept can penetrate your intellect.

[Hep]

7. I love it

Just use your motto: John Kerry, less horrible than Bush.

[sangh0]

20. Another cheap shot, Hep

You know that's no one's motto.

[Hep]

25. It's the Great American Excuse

Why did he vote for the IWR? Because they let him work to make it "less horrible". Why did he vote for the amendment to the 2004 budget? Because the amendment made the tax cut "less horrible".

Never mind that you're giving away your power of checks and balances, nevre mind that you are changing the whole debate, granting the right's premise. We just want what's less horrible. We'll settle for that.

[sangh0]

40. Word games

If you meant to say that "The IWR that Kerry voted for was less horrible than the one that Bush wanted" then you should have said that and not "Kerry is less horrible than Bush*"

[Hep]

50. whatever!

Kerry was willing to go along, as long as it was less horrible. Never mind the fight.

The fight, remember? The struggle was against BAD POLICY. It was never supposed to be about "can we make it slightly LESS bad?"

Word games. Yeah, you recognize those.

[sangh0]

57. Dodging the question

Kerry was willing to go along, as long as it was less horrible. Never mind the fight.

And again, if you were addressing the IWR vote, why didn't you say that and instead falsely claim that Kerry's motto is "Kerry is less worse than Bush*"?

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

70. You said what you said

Are you saying I shouldn't believe what you say?


I can do that.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

92. I dont notice any diffference

It's not as if there's been an increase in name-calling from your end. Just an increase in the sophistication.

[Hep]

98. sowwy

unkie Hep not here.

[sangh0]

102. Your arguments are improving

and the name-calling from you has actually decreased. Good work, young man

[Hep]

105. I have n xbox!

its fun, but mom won;t let me play until homework is done!

[TLM]

126. No I think the Kerry motto, at least for his supporters is

"Vote For Kerry, Or You're Stupid!"

Because they seem to think that the only reason people support Dean over Kerry is that we're all so stupid that we've been tricked by the evil Rove owned media into thinking Dean is a hippy peacenik who is against all war... and if we were just a little less stupid we'd see Dean is a moderate and then run to support Kerry.

Bu what the Kerry crew forgets is that this old school style spin doesn't work with Dean's supporters because we know Dean, many of us have met him and heard him dispell this spin first hand, months ago.

[sangh0]

137. More Dean untruths

No one here has said "Vote For Kerry, Or You're Stupid!"

[dccindy]

180. I just heard him disspell this last week

I think the Kerry supporters are getting real desperate with this latest attack -first Gephardt, now Kerry. It shows just how much of a threat Dean is to them and with good reason - he leads in Iowa, NH and SC

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. Of course he does.

Better to avoid the title of the article by saying, "But look at Dean. He's duplicitous, too!"

I think they've both made conflicting statements on Iraq. Dean with his "60 day ultimatum" statement(the only real waffle that I think Dean had on Iraq) and Kerry in a couple of other ways, this one being the most disturbing:

"The president made promises to us — that he would build a coalition, that he would respect the U.N. and go through the international inspection process, and that he would only go to war as a last resort," he said.

As stated many times by his supporters here, Kerry is supposedly the King of anti-BFEE. How can you be aware of the criminality of BushCo, and yet trust him to do the right thing?

"I think over time it's sinking in," Mr. Kerry said. "I think I was prescient. I think I showed leadership."

Huh? He just said that promises were broken and yet he's still "prescient." True prescience would have been knowing that Chimp was going to war, regardless. Millions of people took to the streets, knowing that that was exactly what was going to happen. They were the real "prescient" ones.



All that being said, I understand what Kerry was trying to do with his vote. He just trusted the wrong person to implement it.

[realFedUp]

5. duplicity

(seems to be what Senator Kerry is facing more than Dean.)

"In any case, Mr. Kerry said he took solace from a poll last week finding that many voters in three early primary states said they wanted a presidential nominee who supported the war in Iraq but was critical of Mr. Bush for not assembling an international coalition. And, Mr. Kerry noted, he received an ovation on Saturday in Waterloo when he spoke of his vote against the $87 billion."

(Do you go after the people who thought invading Iraq
in a pre-emptive strike was a good thing or do you go
after the people who thought invasion was a bad thing
and spin your position on it or do you do both?)

(I don't fault the politicians who voted for the promise
of UN support and coalition building before invasion...
they were had, but they knew they were being had at
the same time...it gave them an out)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Exactly.

but they knew they were being had at
the same time...it gave them an out

If they didn't know they were being had, that's an whole other problem.

[Hep]

9. Doesn't even matter

they voted away their checks and balances. They allowed the balance of power in this country WRT foreign policy to be shifted to the executive branch, home of our idealogical enemy. That's just weak.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. I totally agree.

I was just trying to get into his mind for a second.

[sangh0]

21. Historical ignorance

The Framers of our Constitution wanted the Executive Branch to be the one's who determined our foriegn policy.

[Hep]

26. LOL

Which is why congress is supposed to have the final say as to whether or not we go to war?

Whatever you say!

[sangh0]

42. War is not the only part of foreign policy

and in the Constitution, it's the CINC who has the "final say" as to whether or not we go to war. The Constitution has always allowed POTUS to order military action without Congressional approval, and from the earliest days of our govt, Presidents have used this power.

[Hep]

68. in which wars?

Which official wars did the president declare without congress, please?

[sangh0]

72. You're begging the question

which depends on the idea that it's not a war unless Congress declares it. I could point to our attacks against the Barbary pirates, but you would just say "Thats not a war becuase Congress didn't declare war"

I didn't say anything about "official wars", a term which cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution.

[Hep]

85. OIC

So our war with Iraq was something similar to attacking the Barbary pirates? Or was it something more like an official war?

[sangh0]

94. What's an "Official" war?

I can find no reference to it in the Constitution.

[Hep]

101. Look at how the argument narrows!

n/t

I like how it's not about kerrys YES vote on the IWR anymore!

[sangh0]

103. Can't you answer the question?

What the heck is an "Official" war?

[Hep]

106. Make a new thread

Or get back on the subject. I don't know what an official war is, but you seem to think the president doesn't need congress to declare it. And you seem to be arguing that it's OK if a president does it without approval. OH WAIT! He HAD approval! How did he get that? Riiiiiight, because enough SENATORS, like KERRY voted for it.

[sangh0]

115. You don't know??? You use it but you don't know what it is?

you seem to think the president doesn't need congress to declare it

Well, then let's clear up your "seems" so there's no doubt:

Congress doesn't need to declare anything in order for POTUS to start a war. The Korean War, and the VietNam War were never declared war by Congress, and they were wars. There are dozens of other examples where we went to war without Congress voting on a delcaration of war. That list includes the invasion of Iraq.

You seem to be arguing the it's not a war if COngress doesn't declare war. If that's the case, then what do you call this war. We invaded Iraq even though Congress never approved a declaration of war. They only approved a resolution.

[Rose Siding]

23. It takes MUCH longer than that

as is pointed out twice in the article-

"Mr. Kerry's explanations can take 10 minutes or more..."

"...Mr. Kerry took 40 minutes to arrive at a somewhat simple formulation"

Must be frustrating for a reporter who wants to get the "nuance" just right.

[unfrigginreal]

27. LOL

Must be frustrating for a reporter who wants to get the "nuance" just right.

Priceless.

[quinnox]

16. Good for you John

Keep turning on the heat on Dean, the cracks in Dean's campaign are starting to show. With Gephardt pounding Dean on the same themes, Dean might end up with a bad case of his words returning to haunt him, bigtime.

[Hep]

17. Gephardts a joke!

He ought to watch his step, throwing rocks in glass houses.

http://www.dickfacts.com

[Nazgul35]

93. It's not that it is Dean....

this is Gephardt's status quo for running a presidential campaign...as anyone who recalls his last bid for the nomination can attest too. And Gephardt is part and parcel of what occured in 2002....both he and Daschle succumbed to Bush's pressure to hold the vote before the election....remember, the Dems controlled the Senate thanks to Jeffords....so Daschle could have tabled the vote until after the election....

Now why would someone do this....because both men where preparing to run for Pres. in 2004 and choose their own personal futures against the needs of the country and our party....YOU DON'T RUN TO THE MIDDLE IN A MID-TERM ELECTION!!!!!!!!!!!! And any Dem in the Senate who didn't raise holy hell and push back at Daschle are themselves responsible for all that has occured in Iraq...they can fillabuster Estrada but couldn't even raise up any resistance when millions of people around the world were trying to fight in vain cause our leadership in the government was pathetic....AND STILL IS!!!!

Kerry was in the Senate, wasn't he? Oh, and was that Gephardt I saw at the signing ceremony with the president? hmmmmm......talk about historical reality and a time line....

[mzmolly]

18. Gosh I have an article from February here also.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/dean_2-25.html

"My view of this is since Iraq is not an imminent danger to the United States, the United States should not unilaterally attack Iraq. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. They do not have much of a nuclear program, if they have one at all left. And they have not... there is not any particular evidence that is convincing that they have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. All those three things would constitute, in my view, a reason to defend our country by unilaterally attacking. But those are not the cases. Sec. Powell and the president have not made those cases well." Howard Dean February 25,2003

Howard Dean's position has been crystal clear, consistant and reasonable.

[sangh0]

22. Dean also said

""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."

That's the point of this thread!! Dean has made two contradictory statements about invading Iraq unilaterally. In one, the one you quote, Dean says "the United States should not unilaterally attack Iraq". In the other, he says "if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice"

[mzmolly]

28. The quote you mention is out of context

when I see the interview in it's entirety, I'll pass judgement on this statement.

[TLM]

195. Yeah, just look at what the liar cut out... the 2 paragraphs before it.

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.

From Washington come the barbs -- The New Republic calls it proof
he's "not serious." ABC News' "The Note" wonders if he's backed himself into a corner. Dean has opposed the pending war because he didn't think President Bush had made his case. If he doesn't support military action now, the thinking goes, then he's just contradicting himself. Or, at the very least, he's been put in an untenable and -- for the moment, at least inside war-ready Washington, unpopular -- position.

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.




And as you wodner why Kerry supporters would make such a clumsy and obvious lie...

Dean Soars into Huge Lead in New Hampshire Now Leads Kerry 40-17 Among Likely Voters; Clark and Edwards in Distant 3rd --New Zogby Poll

Former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean has opened a large lead over his closest challenger in New Hampshire according to the newest poll by Zogby International.

Dean earned 40%, compared to Massachusetts Senator John Kerry’s 17%. None of the other candidates have exceeded single digits in the polling. Retired General Wesley Clark and North Carolina Senator John Edwards are tied for third with 6% each.

[mzmolly]

255. Exactly right TLM and you wont find an article that backs up 'their' bull

which is why I insist on a link these days ;)

Dean - consistantly against the invastion of Iraq. No doubt about it!

[Hep]

29. That's pretty evil, what you're doing

What's the date of your quote, Sangho? When did he make that statement. I asked earlier, and thought I had it right, but I looked more deeply into it. When exactly did Dean say that?

Then ask, did anything important happen between your quote and the one you responded to?

And then ask youself, "Why am I using such crooked tactics?"

I eagerly await all of your answers!

[sangh0]

46. The point is

Dean's position has not been as consistently "opposed an invasion of Iraq" as he now makes it out to be. The truth is that Dean would have supported a unilateral invasion under conditions similar to those under which Kerry would support a unilateral invasion. The main difference is that Kerry voted for the IWR, and Dean didn't, and didn't have to.

Now Dean says that Kerry's vote was "a vote for war", but it turns out that Dean's conditions for an invasion are similar to Kerry's.

As far as the questions you asked about the date of the quotes, the completeness of the quotes, and intervening events, I would just point out that the same things could be said for Kerry. Kerry has been accused of "flip-flopping" because of a perceived contradiction, a perception that's been aided by a lack of questions of the sort you have asked.

The point is, this issue is not as simple as "He voted for IWR so he supports the war, and he voted against IWR so he was against war" and this is demonstrated by some highly nuanced arguments, arguments which Dean ignores in order to attack Dems who voted for the IWR for "voting for war". But when the same approach is used against Dean, and his words seem to contradict other things he's said, now, all of a sudden, Dean wants to talk about nuance.

[mzmolly]

56. The point is Dean's position differed from Kerry's all along...

You can spin all you want, but the facts remain.

Kerry's my second choice, and I don't begrudge him, but I know the difference between his and Dean's position on Iraq. And I believe you do to.

[sangh0]

60. Yes, it did differ, but they were similar

"Similar", not "the same". When things are "the same" there are no differences. When things are "similar", there are both similarities and differences. So yes, there were differences. No one is saying any else.

However, there WERE similarities. Particularly on when the use of unilateral force would be justified. Both Dean and Kerry's position on when the unilateral force should be used are very similar.

[Hep]

59. Sorry

Dean's position has not been as consistently "opposed an invasion of Iraq" as he now makes it out to be.

It's really pathetic how you characterize this. PATHETIC. You don't even do the simple things I ask. You don't want to, because then you'd know the TRUTH, and to continue on this mean spirited rampage would be LYING instead of BEING MISTAKEN.

I don't care if Kerry flip flopped, I care that he never fought the good fight. He was willing to grant the right's premises. On the war, on the tax cut. He didn't fight MY fight. He fought some other, politically CONVENIENT fight.

Your approach against Dean is WEAK, and I can prove it. But I'm only going to do it by WALKING YOU THROUGH IT, because if I just tell you, you'll try to evade it.

So you say Dean is inconsistent. I'm calling you on it. I'll make the first step vbery easy for you. The comment you posted was from 2/6. The one you responded to was from 2/25. Something happened on 2/14. Tell me what it is. And tell me what bearing it might have had on the debate.

[sangh0]

66. Dean didn't fight the "good fight"

And you are engaging in the same sort of disingenous arguments that you claim I'm using.

"He was willing to grant the right's premises. On the war, on the tax cut...He fought some other, politically CONVENIENT fight"

All based on one fact, Kerry's IWR vote. It completely ignores all sorts of other facts. It makes no attempt to consider intervening events. It makes no attempt to consider Kerry's years-long record on the issue of disarming Saddam. Your attacks on Kerry are politically CONVENIENT and WEAK.

So you say Dean is inconsistent. I'm calling you on it. I'll make the first step vbery easy for you. The comment you posted was from 2/6. The one you responded to was from 2/25. Something happened on 2/14. Tell me what it is. And tell me what bearing it might have had on the debate

You miss the point. What's inconsistent is the way it's OK when Dean ignores all of the context when he attacks Kerry, but it's not OK to ignore the context when Kerry attacks Dean.

If you want proof of inconsistency, all I have to do is point to the way you insist on answers to questions about Dean, but don't do the same when it comes to Kerry. When it comes to Kerry it's "He was willing to grant the right's premises. On the war, on the tax cut...He fought some other, politically CONVENIENT fight"

[Hep]

74. Dean did.

All based on one fact, Kerry's IWR vote. It completely ignores all sorts of other facts. It makes no attempt to consider intervening events. It makes no attempt to consider Kerry's years-long record on the issue of disarming Saddam. Your attacks on Kerry are politically CONVENIENT and WEAK.

Wrong again! Two facts, Kerry's IWR vote and Kerry's vote on the amendment to the 2004 budget. Intervening events, long standing records, don't seem to address HOW HE VOTED. He betrayed me, sorry. He didn't fight MY fight. MY FIGHT was against tax cuts, against the IWR, not to say well, I'll vote for it if I can make it less horrible.

You miss the point. What's inconsistent is the way it's OK when Dean ignores all of the context when he attacks Kerry, but it's not OK to ignore the context when Kerry attacks Dean.

You claim all tihs context and never even attempt to illustrate it.

Let's get to brass tacks here. Are you still claiming that Dean was inconsistent based on the two quotes that started this whole thing? That's what you claimed before. Are you still claiming that?

And Iwon't deny being inconsistent in NOT helping you refute claims about Kerry. That's your job, you're his underling. I don't expect you to do any work refuting claims about Dean except for one question. Why is 2/14 relevant? I'll eventually give you the answer.

So stop making this about you and me. Just tell me if you are still claiming that Dean was inconsistent with his stance on Iraq in February.

[sangh0]

88. LOL

SO your argument is that "It's not one vote, it's two" Do you really think that two votes is all the context there is?

And if "your fight" is tax cuts, why are you so interested in IWR? You're starting to sound too emotional to be rational. You're arguing that Kerry is wrong on IWR because he was wrong on tax cuts. And you're using both of those arguments to dishonestly claim that Kerry's motto is "Kerry is less horrible than Bush*"

Are you still claiming that Dean was inconsistent based on the two quotes that started this whole thing?

I am saying that there are all sorts of inconsistencies in the things Dean has said and done. And it's inconsitent of YOU to demand the context when it comes to Dean, but ignore the context (and two votes is NOT all of the context) when it comes to others.

And Iwon't deny being inconsistent in NOT helping you refute claims about Kerry.

Why do you refuse to consider the context? Don't you want to consider all the facts, or is that someone else's job?

Just tell me if you are still claiming that Dean was inconsistent with his stance on Iraq in February.

Consistency isn't something that happens in one given moment, such as "in February". Consistency is something that is demonstrated over long periods of time. During this campaign, Dean has made inconsistent statements, and I see no reason why we should limit this to February.

[Hep]

97. votes

are matters of record. His official position on a topic as outlined in the bill or amendment. My problem is with the vote. Anything else is EXCUSES.

Kerry voted against MY wishes. He did the opposite of what I wanted democrats to do. Lots of democrats did the RIGHT thing, not some lesser version of the wrong thing. What fault do you find with them?

I am saying that there are all sorts of inconsistencies in the things Dean has said and done. And it's inconsitent of YOU to demand the context when it comes to Dean, but ignore the context (and two votes is NOT all of the context) when it comes to others.

What happened on 2/14?

And evidence that you have to disprove any claims of inconsistency on Kerry's part that I've made are welcome. But I'm not saying he was inconsistent. I'm saying he was WRONG and has to admit it, so your strawman kinda falls apart.

Why do you refuse to consider the context? Don't you want to consider all the facts, or is that someone else's job?

What context? Where have I made a claim that context can clear up?

He put his vote into the public record. What context is there?

Consistency isn't something that happens in one given moment, such as "in February". Consistency is something that is demonstrated over long periods of time. During this campaign, Dean has made inconsistent statements, and I see no reason why we should limit this to February/.

You should run for office, as you apparently evade questions like the best of them. You claimed that the 2/6 quote and the 2/25 quote were inconsistent. Are you still claiming that? What happened on the 14th?

[maha]

33. Thanks for taking quotes of out context to smear Dean!

Thanks for giving me a reason to cross Kerry off my candidate list!Makes things simpler!

PS I read the WHOLE Salon article.

[mzmolly]

41. Hey did you read this from the article you mention...

"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."

There you have it folks, Dean-right again. The man with the vision and the kahunas to lead our nation.

In fact, the quote you reference appears to be paraphrased. Note that the quotation marks end at -- "as I've said about eight times today," *the remainder of the so called quote appears to conflict with the article and contains no quotes??? I'd say we have a case of the Coulters here.

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.

Regarding those reports trying to find conflicting statements...

*from the same article*

Dean says that's fine, and denies that there's any inconsistency. "I think people are madly trying to find one," he says. "It's part of the game."

Thanks for playing!

[sangh0]

55. YOu left out the part

Where Dean says he gives Bush* the benefit of the doubt, and Dean has said that he had no doubt that Saddam had WMD's. In the statement you quote, Dean refers to the need to "disarm" Saddam.

Disarm Saddam of what? That one phrase should be enough to show that Dean bought the WMD lies also.

And why is wrong to take one quote from Dean to make a point, but it's OK for Dean to ignore the years of speeches Kerry has given on this subject and claim that Kerry's vote for IWR was "a vote for war"? Isn't focusing on one vote, and ignoring years of Kerry's speeches the same sort of "quoting out of context" that you criticize me for?

[mzmolly]

61. When I see the quotes in context then I'll respond..

:hi:

I'll have to check back later though as life calls.

~Peace

[sangh0]

73. Funny how how you dont need quotes in context

when Kerry's attacked because "a vote for IWR is a vote for war". Then, the need for context disappears

[Hep]

87. I don't need the context for Dean

Because I know how you're being disingenuous.

What happened on 2/14?

[sangh0]

96. Your words earlier

"Youre refusal to pay any attention to any time line, to use any direct quotes, to regard context, all serve to illustrate how desperate you are to make a point that doesn't exist. But thanks for trying, you really brought light to a depressing day."

But when it comes to Kerry it's "I don't need the context for Dean"

[Hep]

104. FOR DEAN not FOR KERRY

Please. Get back on track!

Show me where I said Kerry was inconsistent and then provide any context that proves me wrong.

I don't need context from Dean's speech, or from that Salon article, or anything else to prove how mean spirited and, well, evil, you're being with the SPOECIFIC claim that the quote from 2/6 is inconsistent with the quote from 2/25. Because I know what happened on 2/14.

[sangh0]

107. That's inconsistent!!

You demand context when Dean is attacked, but require none to attack Kerry, and when context is provided for Kerry you ignore it.

I don't need context from Dean's speech

Right, you are inconsistent. You only require the context that you desire. You don't want to see the context for Dean becuase it shows how inconsistent he's been.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

116. Nope, it's not fair

to demand context for one, and ignore it for the other.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

134. I'm lying?

I thought you said you had left your nephew in charge?

And what happened on 2/14 is irrelevant. The fact remains, Dean made one statement that contradicts another.

[mzmolly]

257. Nope, he didn't. Never contradicted himself NOT ONCE.

He has remained consistant.

[madfloridian]

77. I talked to Kerry's office, begging them not to support going to war.

I talked to Edward's office, and all the others. All I got was how bad Saddam was, how bad Iraq was, how we had to fight the terrorism.

I remember breaking into tears one time when I called Hilary's office. They were all so cold, so determined to vote for Bush's war.

They all except Kucinich voted for it with their eye wide open, deliberately, and coldly. It was not an accident, it was not a maybe vote......They voted YES.

Our soldiers are dying, we have killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, because they voted yes.

You should be ashamed of the way you twist everything to defend an indefensible vote.

I called Edward's campaign office the day the bombs fell in March. I asked them how he felt about his vote now. After the stammering, I got this....He did not want the killing. Kerry's office was about the same......They wanted the war, not the killing.

Well, slap me on the side of the head, but I do think war IS killing.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

82. NOBODY "wanted war"...maybe not even Bush

But Kerry sure as hell didn't want a war.... so don't ever say that again.

[madfloridian]

95. I will say it again. He may not have wanted it, but he voted for it.

I am sorry, I like him very much. In fact I like all of them. But don't tell me that I must not say something. I spent so many hours on the phone. I felt the coldness from all of them.

On edit to clarify:
I would vote for him or the others if necessary, but I very much resent that they don't take responsibility for what they did. They keep attacking Dean's position instead of clarifying and justifying their own.

[Sideways]

114. Good Fucking Gawd You Don't Think Bush Wanted This War?

There is even a doubt? Go have your fucking head examined. This might be the stupidest thing I've read on DU.

Pom Pom and Rah Rah for Kerry all you want but to try and exonerate Bush is beyond the beyond. SHAME on you!

[TLM]

196. Kerry didn;t care about war... as usual he cared about his career.

If war was the cost of advancing his career, Kerry was more than willing to vote for war.

[SahaleArm]

215. And if you really cared about principles.

Why support Dean over Kucinich?

[mzmolly]

258. Oh, I see...Dennis is the 'principled one'

:eyes:

Egads, not this again... :puke:

[TLM]

270. Because Dean can win and Kucinich can't...

Also because I prefer Dean's stance on guns to Kucinich's... Dean's stance on NAFTA to Kucinich's... Dean's record on abortion to Kucinich's... I think Dean has more charisma than Kucinich... And i find Dean to have more appeal to moderates, independents, and libertarians than Kucinich... Dean also has more ability to bring left leaning republicans over to our side than Kucinich... I do not like Kucinich's attitude regarding use of executive orders.

I do not support Dean solely because he was against the war, nor do I oppose Kerry solely because he was for the war. And even if I were a one-issue war voter, I’d still probably vote for Dean because of the candidates who opposed the war, he is the most electable.


Need I go on, or can we put this stupid fucking meme to bed?

[Hep]

86. Here you go again

WHat happened on 2/14?

[maha]

297. Revisionist History on the Fly

Here's the link to the Salon article. Everybody should just read the WHOLE THING and decide for themselves what it says about Dean.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index.html

My comments: Last February, it was conventional wisdom that Saddam Hussein probably DID have some chemical or biological weapons someplace. The nuclear weapons claim was known to be bogus, but pretty much everyone, including former security people in the Clinton Administration, intelligence agencies in other nations, etc., assumed he still had some biochemical weapons. This was not just a story coming out of the White House or from Tony Blair, although Bush and Blair enhanced the story quite a bit.

The question at the time was not, did he have them, but, would he use them? And most of us who were opposed to the invasion of Iraq last February believed he probably HAD them but would not USE them outside his own borders unless he was attacked. It wasn't until this summer that we learned for certain he really didn't have them.

For this reason, I think anyone who criticizes Dean because he believed some of the WMD claims last February is being dishonest. Personally, I think anyone who gave NO thought to the POSSIBILITY that there might be WMDs, based on what was known at the time, was damn irresponsible.

[blm]

24. The problem is his use of "unilateral" as his security blanket

is disingenuous. The force had already achieved multilateral status which he said in the past he would support.

You can pick any ONE statement of his and agree. I agree with many of his statements. The problem is they have been inconsistent. At one point, his campaign even removed from the front page all Dean's statements and articles from the time around the actual start of war. I think it was because they were conflicting. You could reach the articles if you knew what to look for only through the archives.

Here's what I snapped from his page a couple months ago. The war started March 17.

Nothing from March 10 to April 9?????

..........
Dean Presents 7-Point Plan for Multilateral Reconstruction in Iraq
Washington, D.C. (April 9, 2003)

State labor leaders like all that Dean did for health care in Vermont
Shir Haberman, Portsmouth Herald (March 10, 2003)

All Criticize Bush but Diverge on Iraq
By Dan Balz, The Washington Post (February 22, 2003)
.........

[mzmolly]

30. I've read about every statement Dean has had on Iraq

and found noting conflicting.

Dean said all along, he would not have had an issue with the UN enforcing it's laws. While he preferred containment, he would not have interferred with the international process.

He did have a problem with the USA's unilateral war, because Dean felt Saddam was not a proven threat to the United States.

I have not seen anything that contradicts that position from Howard Dean.

[blm]

36. He had said that he never doubted the need to disarm Iraq of WMDs

and then says that he was never fooled that there were WMDs. Uh. Which is it?

Dean's use of unilateral is part of the deception. Why use it when the force was already in a multilateral stage? Because he can still say forcefully that he's AGAINST unilateral war without, technically, being against the war itself.


If he had nothing to hide, why bury his statements from March 10 to April 9 so they cannot be easily accessed?

[Hep]

39. You're straight up WRONG

or lying. Actually, I think it's the latter, but I'll giv eyou the benefit of the doubt. What you are saying directly contradicts what I've heard FIRST hand from his mouth.

And now you trot out the administrations "It WAS multilateral" gambit which didn't do THEM a lot of good. Nice to see you working together though.

Let me know when you find out what was significant about Valentines day this year.

[sangh0]

78. Hep, firsthand witnessing mean nothing

when it comes to claims that Dean has been inconsistent. The fact that you saw him say one thing does not prove that he didn't say the opposite somewhere else.

Dean has said that Saddam didn't have WMD's and the Saddam DID have WMD's. Dean has said that he was smart enough not to be fooled by Bush*'s lies, and Dean has said that he gives Bush* "the benefit of the doubt". Dean has said he wouldn't support a unilateral war, and that he would support a unilateral under certain conditions.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[mzmolly]

45. He said Bush never made the case for war...

Next...

[blm]

58. He also said...give it 30-60 days, then go in....next.....

See, it doesn't matter how many times he said one thing, it's also that he has said OTHER things that are incompatible.

[mzmolly]

62. Again, links to articles in their entirety are desirable when responding

to criticism. When you post them, I'll respond.

BTW, I've read all of Dean's 30-60 day statements, and I know of what you speak, aka spin. And, I think you know the differences as well as I.

Again, life calls...

~Peace out

[sangh0]

79. And again

qhy do you only insist on all that context when it's Dean? How come you don't demand the same amount of context, with full quotes, when Dean accuses Kerry and other Dems for "voting for war"?

[Hep]

110. so much for the high road

Why do you keep changing the subject from her request to the old WHINE that she's being unfair? Why not just give her the conext she's asking for?

Because you don't have it?

Well why not say so!

[sangh0]

138. Playing stupid Hep?

I know you're aware of the threads where posters have argued about Kerry's vote and how it was motivated by his desire to give Bush* a credible threat of force. You posted in at least one of them. Now you're going to act as if you've never heard the arguments.

[sangh0]

150. The high road?

You've been name-calling from your very first post in this thread. That's not the high road.

That's why your posts are getting deleted

[mzmolly]

Because a VOTE is a VOTE and it's on the record.

*cough* I think that's uhm pretty clear. :eyes:
Are you saying Kerry didn't vote for the War resolution?

[mzmolly]

259. Dup

*

[Hep]

109. WRONG

And we have a new player! Tell me, BLM, the significance of 2/14, please!

[sangh0]

142. Dean contradicted himself

He has been inconsistent. WHen it's pointed out to you, you argue that changing circumstances led Dean to change his mind, but when it comes to Kerry, you pay no attention to the changing circumstances.

[TLM]

273. Again with this lie... tell me can you understand the difference

between a change in policy and having multiple policies based on variable criteria?

in orther words, if X happens, then you go with policy Y, but if X doesn't happen you go with policy Z?



From the start Dean laid out a very detailed plan, that contain various plans of action that he would support if various criteria were met, and other plans he would support if those criteria were not met.

That's not a change in policy.

If I say that I won't punch you in the face unless you step on my foot, then you don't step on my foot, that doesn't mean I changed my mind about punching you in the face or contradicted my statement... it means that the conditions that would prompt the action did not take place, so remaining consistent with my stated position, I wouldn’t punch you in the face.

What is so hard for you to comprehend about the idea of having a dynamic policy with contingencies?

[TLM]

198. BLM, since you repeatedly lied about quotes, edited quotes...

and left out things that did not support your abject hatred for Deam, I simply do not beleive a word you say about Dean's statments unless you cite a link.

[TLM]

205. Why do you keep lying about this BLM

Just because you can;t seem to figure out how to use the search function on Dean's site, that somehow means he is hiding stuff?


Seach for "March 17" and tada:


http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8363

"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 goals of 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 we 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."

[maha]

32. Kerry needs to shut up.

He needs to issue an apology for his IWR vote, and say that he's sorry he didn't at least insist on a provision that would have required Bush to come back to Congress if he didn't get the UN support he promised to get. And then he should shut up about Dean, who has been consistency itself compared to Kerry on the Iraq war issue.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

34. Dean needs to straighten himself out

If Dean is the model of consistency then we are screwed.
Kerry's been a straight arrow. 40 years worth too.

[Hep]

37. still waiting for your response

in backing up your claims that he's inconsistent. Or maybe you look down at people who are willing to base their opinions on the info they have, being willing to adapt when new information comes in.

I really don't know you, which I think is for the best. But you seem to have a real problem with objectivity WRT candidates having it.

[maha]

43. I have more respect for Kerry and Dean

... than I do for a lot of their supporters. I'll vote for either one if he's the nominee, in spite of some of the bonehead things their supporters say.

But if Kerry called Dean "inconsistent" on Iraq, that's just a flat-out howler.

[sangh0]

80. maha, where's the timeline you demand?

When someone criticizes Dean for inconsistency you demand a timeline, consideration of intervening events, and full quotes. But when it comes to Kerry, I see none of those things.

What happened? Why are you being inconsistent in your demand for context?

[maha]

296. What demand?

Look, for once, this is real simple. It's rare in politics or government that an issue comes along that's actually simple, but this one is.

In regard to the Iraq War, Dean has been AGAINST it. He's been remarkably consistent about being against it. He was against it back when it was a major political liability to be against it.

(PLEASE NOTE: I've seen the quote taken out of context from a Salon article that suggest Dean was thinking about supporting the war. However, I also read the entire article and know the context, and I have a link. So don't bother dragging the quote out again.)

In regard to the Iraq War, Kerry has been inconsistent. He seemed to be ready to vote against the IWR, but then he voted for it, and now he says he's against the war but he won't admit the IWR vote was a mistake.

So now KERRY is saying that DEAN is inconsistent about the war? On what planet?

This is the kind of nonsense that just drags down the whole nominating process. Kerry has great qualifications to be President. Instead of taking stupid potshots at Dean, Kerry would be better served by presenting his own qualifications and policy ideas to people.

[welshTerrier2]

99. please respond to the statement Dean made about invading Iraq

Maha, i have great respect for some of the arguments you made a few days ago regarding why we need to stay in Iraq ... I totally disagree with you but you made your case very well ...

But this response does not measure up as well ...

a key point made earlier in this thread is that Dean has benefitted substantially from being seen as the "anti-war" candidate and Kerry has suffered substantially for his IWR vote ...

i am in 100% agreement with you that Kerry and many other dems were wrong to empower Bush to invade Iraq without more accountability and control being retained by the Congress ...

but, reading Dean's quote about invading Iraq without U.N. authorization and without an "imminent threat" seems to clearly paint Dean's position as not substantially different than Kerry's ... I see nothing in Dean's statement that requires, as you correctly suggest, that Bush be required to return to the Congress ... I see nothing in Dean's statement that acknowledges the long-held standard of "imminent threat" ...

frankly, the whole issue of consistency is nonsense as it applies to both Kerry and Dean ... both have been consistent ... and both were dead wrong about the invasion ... it should not have happened ... our Congress sold us down the river and severely jeopardized U.S. prestige around the world ...

I see nothing wrong with pointing out that Dean supported an invasion of Iraq under circumstances that were inconsistent with international law ...

[maha]

298. You're talking about the Salon article, right?

Just please read the whole article.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index.html

Then explain to me why you think Dean wasn't REALLY opposed to the invasion of Iraq.

[poskonig]

35. Is this supposed to be funny?

Dean has made his position crystal clear, while Kerry's is ridden with nuances.

[JNelson6563]

44. Going negative?!?!?!?

Well I see it's working for him:

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=750

Julie

[maha]

303. It's just politics.

Kerry's gunnin' for Dean because right now he sees Dean as his main obstacle to the nomination. But I personally don't think "going negative" will work for Kerry right now. Kerry started out as the presumptive front runner, but he's been weak in the debates and hasn't shown me a real compelling reason to support him. Kerry needs to focus on clarifying his own positions and on taking down BUSH. Then I might be impessed.

[oc2002]

54. Its hard to hold anyone accountable for going to war in Iraq when.....

...the lies and propaganda machine was going full tilt before the war 'mushroom cloud over an America' type statements where being given by members of the Bush Administration, WMD and Lies Upon Lies even into the State of the Union.

I hope the Democrats remember, the REAL target is IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

Not each other! damit!

[madfloridian]

127. Disagree, DU was not under any cloud of misinformation at all.

We should not be attacking each other, but all the facts were available to our congress folks. The facts were here, at Bartcop, at Smirking Chimp. The facts were all over the internet.

They did not listen to us.

[sangh0]

145. Dean was under that cloud, too

LiberalOasis: What do you think were the motivations for the Bush Administration to go to war with Iraq?

Howard Dean: I can't speak to his motives, because I can't read his mind.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, though, and presume that he believes Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to our security.

Of course, in and of itself, Saddam’s departure is a good thing

[CMT]

76. hogwash

Dean never acted like a pacifist. He opposed the war in Iraq and the resolution but he has always stated he supported the first Gulf War for instance. It is just like the press saying he was a "Mcgovernite" just becuz he was anti-war when he is a solid Clintonite Democrat.

[madfloridian]

81. Kerry voted for the war, he should take responsibility.

He is not going to fix what he did by acting like that toward Dean.
He voted with his eyes open and with no gun held to his head.

He had the same facts we here at DU had, and he ignored them very loudly.

He needs to hush on this topic.

[seaglass]

281. There were no facts on DU.

There was a lot of information but not one person on this board knew more than the intelligence community, no one had access to the information presented to Congress.

I'm not trying to pick on you madfloridian because I've seen this statement made over and over again.

People on DU believed certain things that were proven to be correct but no one KNEW.

[madfloridian]

282. And the statement will be made more often.

Yes, there were facts. There were people speaking out and being hushed by the media. It was not speculation here, not like that. I remember quoting things to the offices I called, things that were pretty well in the public venue. They just acted like it was nothing.

I have all my bookmarks from last year. We were not just sitting here being armchair quarterbacks, pretending there was no problem.

No one even thought Iraq was responsible for terrorism, but they voted to invade them anyway.

To anyone on the internet there was all the news you needed to keep us out of Iraq.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

284. the closed briefings to congress were NOT in the public venue

'ya know, the ones where Powell and his spooks presented all this really scary stuff meant to persuade the wavering and skeptical congresspersons that they had damn well better do something or Saddam was gonna be evne more trouble somewhere down the road.

[stickdog]

100. A classic case of projection (NT)

[killbotfactory]

111. You want duplicity?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
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
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.

May 4th, 2004

That said, Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, truly the personification of evil. He has launched two wars of aggression against his neighbors, perpetrated environmental disaster, purposefully destabilized an entire region of the world, murdered tens of thousands of his own citizens, flouted the will of the United Nations and the world in acquiring weapons of mass destruction, conspired to assassinate the former President of the United States, and provided harbor and support to terrorists bent on destroying us and our friends.

From that perspective, regardless of the Administration's mishandling of so much of this situation, no President can defer the national security decisions of this country to the United Nations or any other multilateral institution or individual country.

Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any President, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats - threats both immediate and longer term - against it.

Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for twelve years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly , I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.

March 17th, 2003

Saddam Hussein made a grave error when he chose to make war with the ultimate
weapons-inspections enforcement mechanism

April 11th, 2003

The washingtonese is making my head spin, oh wait...

"The question is, are you offering a vision of leadership, and do you stop talking Washingtonese," Kerry said. "And I ain't talking Washingtonese."

Aug. 10, 2003

Maybe he has a speech impediment?

[sangh0]

146. Yes, your post is duplicitous

In the 1st post, the decision that Kerry supports is the decision to disarm Saddam. Dean also supported that decision. Dean said that we MUST disarm Saddam at some point.

The 2nd quote Kerry criticizes Bush* and Saddam. I wonder which criticism Dean has trouble with.

The third quote has Kerry criticizing Saddam. Ohhh, the horrors! I guess Deanies don't like it when Saddam is criticized.

The 4th and 5th quote are irrelevant to anything, and smacks of desperation to make a point, though the point seems to be quite obscure.

[killbotfactory]

149. "Preferred diplomacy, but supported invading Iraq "

This page agrees with me, as does everyone except Kerry and his supporters, apparently.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_War_+_Peace.htm


Kerry sure can talk himself into knots avoiding direct answers to questions.

[sangh0]

152. Dean contradicts himself

and instead of defending him, because you can't, you try a duplicitous tactic by implying that Kerry supported the invasion when he did not.

Dean supported a unilateral invasion of Iraq

[madfloridian]

153. You are outrageous in your comments. Unbelievable.

If Kerry did not support the invasion, then why the heck did he vote for it?

And your comment about Dean does not even deserve an answer.

[sangh0]

154. If Dean opposed unilateral war

then why did he propose giving Saddam a 60-day deadline, and then unilaterally attack even if the UN disagreed?

[killbotfactory]

158. Dean is against Bush's war

Always has been, and he's been very clear.

Supporting unilateral war under certain conditions which have never been met is not the same. But, this has been pointed out over, and over, and over...

[sangh0]

185. Kerry is against Bush*'s war

Always has been, and he's been very clear.

[killbotfactory]

191. Not in my opinion, or the opinion of issues2000,org

or, I would guess, anyone who took Kerry at his word.

[sangh0]

204. Wow! Such authorities

You and an internet website!!

[killbotfactory]

207. Kerry is the ultimate authority on what his positions are.

Once again with emphasis added for the hearing impared.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
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
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.

May 4th, 2003

Who are you gonna believe? John Kerry or you?

[sangh0]

211. Yep, Kerry is

which is why the quote you supply shows that, like Dean, Kerry supporte disarming Bush* but didnt support Bush*'s invasion

[killbotfactory]

216. Not really

Unless Kerry doesn't listen to the questions he's asked.

Question: Was the decision to invade the right one?
Kerry: I would prefer diplomacy but support the decision to disarm Saddam.

Now you want me to believe he was against the invasion, despite being asked a direct question about it, saying it was the right decision to disarm saddam, and not saying that the invasion was wrong?

All aboard the straight-talk express!

[killbotfactory]

156. Sorry, anyone who has a memory that goes back farther than a few months

knows that Kerry attacking Dean for being "duplicitous" is bullshit. Especially after being constantly attacked for being against the Iraq war by the media, republicans, and by other democrats.

The best you can do to defend Kerry is to parse his words so carefully you can twist their meaning into something more favorable. The same tactic used to attack Dean.

"Dean supported a unilateral invasion of Iraq" under certain conditions which have never been met. Whee. Keep spinning.

[sangh0]

174. Dean supported a unilateral invasion of Iraq

and even you won't deny that. All you can do is to attack me, but you can't defend Dean on this because it's true

[killbotfactory]

178. Yes, no one cares.

Because Dean and his supporters realize that under certain circumstances a unilateral attack may be necessary.

What I don't understand is why you keep bringing this up as if it has any relevency to the issue of whether or not he ever supported the Iraq invasion.

[sangh0]

187. That's right. Dean supported unilateral war

but you won't hear him say that during a debate.

[killbotfactory]

190. What is it about this you don't understand.

It's not very difficult. No one is criticizing Kerry for not being against unilateral war under any conditions. He is being criticized for not being against THIS unilateral war. The Iraq Invasion. Bush's war. Cheney's land grab. PNACs adventures in wars of conquest. Get it?

Bringing up that Dean would support unilateral war under conditions that have not been met is irrellevent to the subject of the Iraq invasion. Understand yet?

[sangh0]

208. Kerry was against this war

Please don't lie about it. Since you Deanies are so big on asking for links, could you please provide one link where Kerry says he supports Bush*'s invasion.

And I don't mean a quote where Kerry supports the decision to disarm Saddam. Dean also supported disarming Saddam. I want a quote where Kerry supports Bush*'s invasion of Iraq.

Bringing up that Dean would support unilateral war under conditions that have not been met is irrellevent to the subject of the Iraq invasion. Understand yet?

Bringing up that Kerry would support unilateral war under conditions that have not been met is irrellevent to the subject of the Iraq invasion. Understand yet?

Kerry voted yes because he supported unilateral war under certain conditions that hadn't been met yet. At the time of the vote, he said we should only use military force as a last resort. But that doesn't stop you from ignoring his statement and lie about how he "voted for war". Nothing in the IWR required an invasion.

Bush* lied. It's Bush*'s war, and it's Bush*'s responsibility, and instead of holding Bush* responsible, Dean lies and says it's the Dems fault, for political gain. Dean's giving Bush* a pass so he can get votes.

[killbotfactory]

212. Don't be obtuse

Once again with emphasis added for the hearing impared.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
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
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.

May 4th, 2003

If you missed them, here are the key sentences:
"Was that the right decision at the right time"
"I think it was the right decision"
"when the president made the decision, I supported him"

No where in his reply does it say the invasion was the wrong decision at the wrong time, but it does say the opposite of that.
If Kerry was saying that he only supported the disarming of Saddam, then his response was a complete and total evasion of the question, which was about whether or not it was right to invade.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

219. you are reading too much into it

Kerry is saying he supported the decision to disarm Saddam. Approval of a specific military strategy is completely separate from that statement of support.

[killbotfactory]

222. No, I think Kerry supporters are.

In this instance "disarm Saddam" is the same as "invasion". That's what the goddamn question was about.

Kerry's asked if the Bush's decision to invade was wrong.
Kerry says he would have preferred diplomacy, but...
Kerry says the decision to disarm Saddam was the right one.
Kerry says he supports Bush's decision.
Kerry doesn't said the invasion was wrong.

Kerry, in other instances, says Saddam brought action on himself.
Kerry, in other instances, says even Blix said he wasn't complying.

It's quite simple. When it came down to it, he wasn't against the invasion.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

229. "I support this invasion"

Kerry didn't say that. He only goes as far as supporting "action". I can see however where the Deanblog helps one craft these readings.

[killbotfactory]

238. He supported Bush's decision to disarm Saddam

It's the same as saying he supported the invasion, because Bush "disarmed" Saddam through invasion. It's not goddamn rocket science.

I'm sorry it makes Kerry look bad, but that's his own damn fault.

[sangh0]

241. So did Dean

Dean also supported the disarmening of Saddam, so I guess Dean supported Bush*'s invasion.

It's not goddamn rocket science. (For sure)

[TLM]

276. oops... because the same question was asked of Dean.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS

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

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.


GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS

(Off Camera) Now Governor Dean, you've criticized Senator Kerry on the campaign trail, saying he's trying to have it both ways, on the issue of Iraq. Was that answer clear enough for you?

HOWARD DEAN

Let me be very clear about what I believe. I'm delighted to see Saddam Hussein gone. I appreciate the fact that we have a strong military in this country, and I'd keep a strong military in this country, but I think this was the wrong war at the wrong time because we have set a new policy of preventive war in this country, and I think that was the wrong thing to do because sooner or later, we're going to see another country copy the United States, and sooner or later we're going to have to deal with the fact that there may well be a Shi'a fundamentalist regime set up in Iraq, which will be a greater danger to the United States than Iraq is.

[TLM]

277. That was the question from george.... he flat out says invasion

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS

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

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.



Kerry clearly supported the invasion of Iraq, and supported Bush.

Then George asked Dean....



GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS

(Off Camera) Now Governor Dean, you've criticized Senator Kerry on the campaign trail, saying he's trying to have it both ways, on the issue of Iraq. Was that answer clear enough for you?

HOWARD DEAN

Let me be very clear about what I believe. I'm delighted to see Saddam Hussein gone. I appreciate the fact that we have a strong military in this country, and I'd keep a strong military in this country, but I think this was the wrong war at the wrong time because we have set a new policy of preventive war in this country, and I think that was the wrong thing to do because sooner or later, we're going to see another country copy the United States, and sooner or later we're going to have to deal with the fact that there may well be a Shi'a fundamentalist regime set up in Iraq, which will be a greater danger to the United States than Iraq is.

[sangh0]

231. Dean said we must "disarm Saddam"

but in that case, for some unexplained reason, it does NOT mean "invasion"

More Dean inconsistency at work.

[killbotfactory]

244. English to Kerry translation guide

If you want Saddam disarmed, it doesn't mean you support Bush's invasion. The UN wanted Saddam disarmed, they didn't agree with invasion.

Saying that you agree with Bush's decision to "disarm" saddam through military action DOES mean that you supported the invasion.

Now that I've repeated myself to you a million times, if you still don't understand this simple logic, there is no hope.

welcome to ignoreville.

[sangh0]

247. Correction

If you want Saddam disarmed, it doesn't mean you support Bush's invasion

unless it's Kerry. Then it means you support Bush*'s invasion.


BTW, why do you call it "Bush*'s invasion" when Dean describes it as being the Dems fault?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

249. an accurate (and depressing) preview of a Dean vs. Bush general election

god help us.

[TLM]

280. Kerry was asked specificaly if he supported the invasion, and he said yes.

GEORGE

On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?


Did you see it clearly Shang0... if not here it is again.

On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

Did you see it that time?

Now here was kerry's response.


SENATOR JOHN KERRY

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.




"BTW, why do you call it "Bush*'s invasion" when Dean describes it as being the Dems fault?"

Really care to cite that quote where Dean said that?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

283. Thank you. Kerry never said the word "invasion"

and the largest point font in cyberspace will not put that one very important word into his mouth.

[TLM]

279. Disarm doesn't mean invasion....

It emans inspections, and destruction of weapons by the UN as they've been doing sucessfully for the last ten fucking years.

And if for some reason that wasn;t enough, one can still bomb weapons sites without invading the country.

[Hep]

226. Approval of a specific military strategy

Such as, Idunno, maybe the IWR?

[sangh0]

234. More duplicity from the Deanies

The IWR contained no military strategy.

[TLM]

275. Kerry didn;t care about the strategy... just his career.

That's why he voted to give Bush a the authority to do whatever he felt needed to be done.


“If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or 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)

[TLM]

274. Kerry not only supported war...

he said “If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or 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)

[killbotfactory]

129. You want clarity?

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade.

August 12, 2002

"There's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims." Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa.

September 06, 2002

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet." Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment.

September 18, 2002

Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.

"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them."

September 18, 2002

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."

October 31st, 2002

"I would like to at least have the president, who I think is an honest person, look us in the eye and say, 'We have evidence, here it is.' We've never heard the president of the United States say that. There is nothing but innuendo, and I want to see some hard facts."

December 22, 2002

"I do not believe the president has made the case to send American kids and grandkids to die in Iraq. And until he does that, I don't think we ought to be going into Iraq. So I think the two situations are fairly different. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. The best intelligence that anybody can find, certainly that I can find, is that it will be at least a year before he does so and maybe five years."

January 06, 2003

"I personally believe hasn’t made his case"

January 10, 2003

"These are the young men and women who will be asked to risk their lives for freedom. We certainly deserve more information before sending them off to war."

January 29, 2003

"Terrorism around the globe is a far greater danger to the United States than Iraq. We are pursuing the wrong war,"

February 5, 2003

"We ought not to resort to unilateral action unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary of State and the president have not made a case that such an imminent threat exists.''

February 12, 2003

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/5236485.htm">Feb. 22, 2003

"Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.

February 27, 2003

[Guaranteed]

237. Seems pretty

goddamned consistent to me. I'm sick of these Kerry supporters trying to pull a Rove and tell us "up is down."

[w4rma]

192. Kerry seems to have nothing positive to say. Just another desperate attack

…
ATTACKS BY FELLOW DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES ON GOVERNOR DEAN

STARTING SEPTEMBER 1

Democrat hopefuls rip chief rival Dean; Kerry, Lieberman turn up heat on front-runner - AP, 9/1

Kerry slams Dean - Boston Globe, 9/1

Democratic White House Hopefuls Focus Attacks On Dean - The Bulletin's Frontrunner, 9/2

Kerry launches campaign, takes aim at Bush, Dean - Seattle Times, 9/3

Kerry Changes Stance, Takes On Dean New Campaign Tactic Highlights Differences Between Candidates - Boston Globe, 9/4

Rivals rip surging Dean - on paper; Democrats blast him in debate handouts - Dallas Morning News, 9/5

Lieberman Leads Attacks On Dean In First Debate - WSJ, 9/5

Dean's Quick Rise Makes Him Target Of His Own Party - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/7

Lieberman Criticizes Dean About His Remarks on Israel - NY Sun, 9/8

Taking a risk, Lieberman takes on front-running Dean - AP, 9/9

Edwards Critical of Dean Over Race Remark - AP, 9/10

Lieberman, Kerry rip Dean; Dems turn feisty in 2nd debate - Boston Globe, 9/10

Gephardt rips into Dean on health care - AP, 9/12

Presidential Candidate Congressman Gephardt Unleashed A Stinging Attack On Rival Howard Dean - FOX News, 9/12

Gephardt Attacks Dean on 2 Social Programs - NYT, 9/13

Gephardt accuses Dean of backing GOP policies - Baltimore Sun, 9/13

Gephardt criticizes Dean for past positions - Des Moines Register, 9/13

Gephardt plays hardball with front-runner Dean - Manchester Union Leader, 9/13

Gephardt Shifts Attacks to Dean - WP, 9/13

After Climbing To The Top, Dean Discovers He's A Target Rivals Set Sights On Front-Runner - Boston Globe, 9/14

In A Shift Of Strategy, Kerry Takes On Dean - Boston Globe, 9/14

Gephardt is latest to attack Dean - Chicago Tribune, 9/14

Gephardt Aims At Dean, Linking Him To Gingrich - St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9/14

Kerry rips Bush but adds Dean hit - AP, 9/15

Gephardt Steps Up Criticism Of Dean, Says He Agreed With 'Gingrich Republicans' - Frontrunner, 9/15

Gephardt: An Attack A Day Keeps The Doctor At Bay? - Hotline, 9/15

Dean becomes a target - Newsday, 9/15

Gephardt Uses Web Site to Criticize Dean - AP, 9/16

Gephardt: Moredeanbashing.com - Hotline, 9/16

Kerry Openly Criticizes Dean's Stance On Tax Cuts For Middle Class Families - Frontrunner, 9/16

Still under attack, Dean goes easy on his rivals - AP, 9/17

Kerry Steps Up Attacks On Dean Over Trade - Frontrunner, 9/23

Kerry Attacks Rival Dean Over Protectionism - NYT, 9/23

Despite interest in Clark, Dean is still top target of other candidates - Philadelphia Inquirer, 9/25

Among the 10, Two Are Tested the Most; Newcomer Clark Avoids Serious Gaffes; Dean Withstands Sharper Challenges - WP, 9/26

10 Democratic rivals debate national woes, attack well-financed Dean and ignore newcomer Clark - Knight-Ridder, 9/26

Democrats spare Clark in his first debate and go after Dean - AP, 9/26

Democratic Candidates Focus Attacks On Dean In Primary Debate - Frontrunner, 9/26

Clark survives debate, as hopefuls target Dean; Candidates' attacks include a comparison to Gingrich - Dallas Morning News, 9/26

Debate Rivals Target Dean - Hartford Courant, 9/26

Debate: All Eyes On The General, All Attacks Aimed At Dean - Hotline, 9/26

Gephardt, Kerry attack Dean over prior views - Washington Times, 9/26

Dean Is Targeted by Rivals - LA Times, 9/26

Bush, Dean under attack in 10-way Democratic debate - Myrtle Beach Sun-News, 9/26

Fellow Dems Diss Dean As Sparks Fly In Debate - NY Post, 9/26

Attacking the Leader; Debate barbs aimed at front-runner Dean - NY Newsday, 9/26

Party unity? The candidates were united, in going after Howard Dean - Phila. Inquirer, 9/26

Dean Takes The Heat From Rivals - Baltimore Sun, 9/26

Clark Debut Doesn't Change Democrats' Focus on Dean - NY Times, 9/27

Democratic rivals target Bush -- and Dean - Salon.com, 9/27

Gephardt attacks Dean Medicare record - AP, 9/29

Democrats: Candidates Criticize Dean's Record On Medicare - American HealthLine, 9/29

Gephardt Compares Dean's Record On Medicare To Gingrich's - Frontrunner, 9/29

Gephardt: Takes His Sparring With Dean To The Sunday Shows - Hotline, 9/29

Attacks on Dean may leave voters dizzy - St. Petersburg Times, 9/29

Dean Rivals Try To Turn His Comments On Key Issues Against Him - Frontrunner, 10/2

Kerry Attacks Dean For Bush Pact - NYT, 10/2

Rivals Target Dean's Blunt Comments - WP, 10/2

Kerry Attacks Dean Over '93 Nuclear Waste Accord - Frontrunner, 10/6

Kerry maintains attacks on Dean over Medicare - DMR, 10/7

Kerry: Still Hammering Away At Dean On Medicare - Hotline, 10/7

Clark, Dean Are Targeted in Debate - LA Times, 10/10

Gephardt roasts Dean on past political moves - Myrtle Beach Sun-News, 10/12

Mutual Threat Unites 2 Rivals Opposing Dean - NYT, 10/12

Gephardt and Kerry unite against Dean - IHT, 10/13

Dean Continues To Draw Fire From Rivals At Des Moines AARP Forum - Frontrunner, 10/16

Other Candidates Again Target Dean; At Iowa Seniors Forum, He Is Chided for Views on Medicare, Bush Tax Cuts - WP, 10/16

'Divers' Dedicated to Dig Dirt on Dean - AP, 10/21

Edwards raps Dean on health plan - Manchester Union Leader, 10/21

Kerry Criticizes Dean Oversight of Vermont Egg Farm - AP, 10/22
…
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001964.html#more

[NewYorkerfromMass]

213. It helps to examine Dean from outside the Deanblog

BTW I don't see where Kerry compared Dean to a cockroach or anything like that anywhere.

also you must have missed this: Kucinich Demands Stations Stop Airing Dean Ad

[Hep]

220. Sour grapes

I always get a chuckle when I come across a grown up who doesn't know what a simile is.

[sangh0]

236. Hypocrisy

Dean doesn't launch "desperate attacks". WHen Dean does it, they're similes

[SahaleArm]

221. Infatuation

It would be interesting to see what percentage of the Dean crowd supports him because he comes off as an anti-war/anti-military messiah. The only candidate that fits with the 'peace' crowd is Kucinich, at least he isn't hyprocritical about it. It's funny to hear the stunned reaction of Dean supporters when they find his views to match the AIPAC. The same ones who will accuse you of not knowing their candidate.

[Hep]

224. Not me

What interests you about it?

It would be interesting to see what percentage of Kucinich supporters think he has a chance, but not as interesting as seeing how Dean bashers ultimately swallow their sheer hatred for the man and cast their vote for him in the general.

And I don't support Dean because he comes off as antiwar or antimilitary. And that's because anyone who gets the impression that he comes off that way isn't paying attention to HIS campaign, just what others say about it.

[Hep]

228. Also

Dean has policies that line up with AIPAC, but by no means do they match.

How odd that we have someone who can view a complicated situation from all the angles, come up with a fair set of policies, and how odd that he's looked down upon for it.

The liberal Dean, who was ferried about the Aipac parley by a high-profile supporter, former Aipac president Steven Grossman, drew a good crowd there, even if his anti-war stance was generally unpopular with the hawkish group. He defended it forcefully, telling the Forward that "Iran is more dangerous to Israel than Iraq is.... I don't think you have to be pro-war or pro-unilateral intervention to be pro-Israel."

At the Reform gathering, however, Dean's trademark cheeky, shoot-from-the-hip manner electrified the crowd, which heartily applauded his platform to make health insurance a right for all Americans. "We have had enough in this country of blaming government for what goes wrong," he said. "Let's lift up government and not be afraid to be Democrats!"

Leaving the gathering, Dean practically had to beat back a number of young people who eagerly volunteered for his campaign. "It would be an honor to work for you," gushed one youth, a leader of the Reform movement's National Federation of Temple Youth.

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.04.04/news2.html

[Hep]

232. Also how funny

that on one hand people here call him too pro-israel, while Kerry himself and LIeberman call him too pro palestine:

On Friday, Kerry said, "In the wake of Howard Dean's statements last week on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, many Democrats wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and dismissed his comments as the flippant remarks of an inexperienced politician."

Kerry continued, "But in going out of his way to term members of Hamas as 'soldiers,' Governor Dean insults the memory of every innocent man, woman, and child killed by these suicidal murderers. Hamas militants are not soldiers in a war - they are terrorists who need to be stopped."

http://www.talonnews.com/news/2003/september/0915_dean_palestinian_position.shtml

Dean's quote, which I agree with, which was jumped on:

"I think no one likes to see violence of any kind. That's why the United States is involved. I will say, however, there is a war going on in the Middle East, and members of Hamas are soldiers in that war, and therefore, it seems to me, that they are going to be casualties if they are going to make war."

[sangh0]

243. Easily explained

It's a sure sign that Dean has been all over the map on this issue.

More Dean inconsistency

[sangh0]

239. Really funny!

Dean has policies that line up with AIPAC, but by no means do they match.

What, no mention how even Dean himself says that he's more AIPAC than PeaceNow?

And I don't understand how Dean's warm response at an "AIPAC parley" shows how his policies differ from AIPAC's.

[Democat]

292. Dean has made his share of "desperate attacks" lately

It's unforunate that Howard feel he has to attack other candidates and it's unfortunate that they attack him.

[JaneQPublic]

223. Here's the RNC's file on John Kerry's duplicity

If by some miracle Kerry becomes our nominee, be prepared for these attacks by the Repukes, which are just a few of the ones they have already researched and posted on their website:

SENATOR KERRY CALLS CANDIDATE KERRY “IRRESPONSIBLE” ON WMD
http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research061903.htm

TALK ABOUT A CREDIBILITY GAP . . .
Kerry’s Proposals To Slash Intel Funding And His Naïve Statements Are At Odds With Campaign Rhetoric About Making America Safer
http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research071603.htm

KERRY’S “GORE PROBLEM”
Will He Say Anything To Get Elected?
http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research061203.htm

KERRY SAID HE VOTED AGAINST PRESCRIPTION DRUG BILL
BUT HE DIDN’T. HE MISSED ALL 35 VOTES
http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research081403-3.htm

[NewYorkerfromMass]

225. Uh huh.... and you think they have the Dean file on the 'net'?

:eyes: :crazy: :freak: Lord help us.

[Hep]

235. subject changed!

Show something about Kerry and magically the whole thing becomes about Dean.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

242. The poster posits that the RNC has the "goods" on Kerry

thus to sink his campaign in the general election. (although these charges against Kerry are laughably weak) So I ask logically- what are the goods on Dean? Is the RNC sharing that with us so we have time to counter charges? Probably not. You usually keep your best cards "close to the vest".

[JaneQPublic]

251. Then let's see some answers to the charges against Kerry...

...if they are so "laughably weak." For starters, let's take his shifting positions on the need for Intel. In the late 90's he supported cutting Intelligence funding, but after 9/11, he complained that Intelligence was weak:

1995: Proposed Bill Cutting $1.5 Billion From Intelligence Budget. Kerry introduced a bill that would “reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.” There were no cosponsors of Kerry’s bill, which never made it to the floor for a vote. (S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95)

1995: Voted To Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480: Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95, Kerry Voted Yea)

1997: Kerry Questioned Growth Of Intelligence Community After Cold War. “Now that that struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as Government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary? …” (Senator John Kerry Agreeing That Critic's Concerns Be Addressed, Congressional Record, 5/1/97, p. S3891)

***BUT***

2003: Candidate Kerry Says “We Have A Serious Problem” With Intelligence. “I believe there are enormous questions still about the overall intelligence given to the congress, the quality of that intelligence … If we don't know the answer about our intelligence, if we do not know what our intelligence community is telling us and whether or not it is broadly true, we have a serious problem.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 7/13/03)

12 Days After 9/11: Kerry Questioned Quality Of Intelligence. “And the tragedy is, at the moment, that the single most important weapon for the United States of America is intelligence. … And we are weakest, frankly, in that particular area. So it’s going to take us time to be able to build up here to do this properly.” (CBS’s “Face The Nation,” 9/23/01)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

252. quality and quantity are different things in my book

you? :shrug: IOW Kerry knows you don't solve problems by just throwing money at them.

The others about Kerry being "Gored" are old ones already well known- and to say Kerry isn't for better health care or affordable prescriptions flies in the face of his record.

[JaneQPublic]

253. Kerry said he voted against the GOP prescription drug bill, but he didn't

"I can promise you a drug prescription that will make us proud. I voted against this prescription bill.” (Sen. John Kerry, Iowa Health Care Forum, 8/14/03)

Actually, he missed all 35 votes:

(S.1, CQ Vote #262: Prescription Drug Benefit - Passage, Passed 76-21: R 40-10; D 35-11; I 1-0, 6/27/03; S.1, CQ Vote #261: Prescription Drug Benefit - Means Test, Rejected 38-59: R 3-47; D 35-11; I 0-1, 6/26/03; S.1, CQ Vote #260: Prescription Drug Benefit - Alternative Plan, Rejected 21-75: R 20-29; D 1-45; I 0-1, 6/26/03; S.1, CQ Vote #259: Prescription Drug Benefit - Retiree Fallback Plan, Rejected 42-54: R 0-49; D 42-4; I 0-1, 6/26/03; S.1, CQ Vote #258: Prescription Drug Benefit - Medigap Policies, Rejected 43-55: R 1-50; D 42-4; I 0-1, 6/26/03; S.1, CQ Vote #257: Prescription Drug Benefit - Medicaid Coverage, Rejected 47-51: R 5-46; D 42-4; I 0-1, 6/26/03; S.1, CQ Vote #256: Prescription Drug Benefit - Immigrant Coverage, Rejected 33-65: R 32-19; D 1-45; I 0-1, 6/26/03; S.1, CQ Vote #255: Prescription Drug Benefit - Experimental Drug Coverage, Adopted 71-26: R 50-0; D 20-26; I 1-0, 6/26/03; S.1, CQ Vote #254: Prescription Drug Benefit - Premium Reduction, Rejected 39-59: R 0-51; D 39-7; I 0-1, 6/26/03; S.1, CQ Vote #253: Prescription Drug Benefit - Additional Disease Treatment, Agreed To 57-41: R 51-0; D 5-41; I 1-0, 6/26/03; S.1, CQ Vote #252: Prescription Drug Benefit - Alzheimer's Subsidy, Adopted 98-0: R 51-0; D 46-0; I 1-0, 6/26/03; CQ Vote #251: Prescription Drug Benefit - Asset Test, Adopted 69-29: R 22-29; D 46-0; I 1-0, 6/26/03; S.1, CQ Vote #250: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cancer Patient Coverage, Agreed To 54-44: R 51-0; D 3-43; I 0-1, 6/26/03; S.1, CQ Vote #249: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cancer Care, Adopted 97-1: R 50-1; D 46-0; I 1-0, 6/26/03; S.1, CQ Vote #248: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Advertisements, Rejected 39-59: R 0-51; D 39-7; I 0-1, 6/26/03; S.1, CQ Vote #247: Prescription Drug Benefit - Disability Services, Agreed To 50-48: R 48-3; D 2-44; I 0-1, 6/26/03; S.1, CQ Vote #246: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cost-Effectiveness Studies, Rejected 43-52: R 0-48; D 43-3; I 0-1, 6/25/03; S.1, CQ Vote #245: Prescription Drug Benefit - Durbin Substitute, Rejected 39-56: R 0-48; D 39-7; I 0-1, 6/25/03; S.1, CQ Vote #244: Prescription Drug Benefit - Premium Reduction, Rejected 39-56: R 0-49; D 39-6; I 0-1, 6/25/03; S.1, CQ Vote #243: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Advertisements, Rejected 26-69: R 0-49; D 26-19; I 0-1, 6/25/03; S.1, CQ Vote #242: Prescription Drug Benefit - Health Centers, Adopted 94-1: R 48-1; D 45-0; I 1-0, 6/25/03; S.1, CQ Vote #241: Prescription Drug Benefit - Employer Compensation, Rejected 41-55: R 0-50; D 41-4; I 0-1, 6/24/03; S.1, CQ Vote #240: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Cost Coverage, Rejected 41-54: R 0-49; D 41-4; I 0-1, 6/24/03; S.1, CQ Vote #239: Prescription Drug Benefit - Benefit Availability, Rejected 41-54: R 1-48; D 40-5; I 0-1, 6/24/03; S.1, CQ Vote #238: Prescription Drug Benefit - Two-Year Fallback Plan, Agreed To 51-45: R 48-2; D 2-43; I 1-0, 6/24/03; S.1, CQ Vote #237: Prescription Drug Benefit - Congressional Coverage, Adopted 93-3: R 50-0; D 42-3; I 1-0, 6/24/03; S.1, CQ Vote #236: Prescription Drug Benefit - Cost Sharing Extension, Agreed To 54-42: R 50-0; D 3-42; I 1-0, 6/24/03; S.1, CQ Vote #235: Prescription Drug Benefit - Canadian Price Equity, Agreed To 66-31: R 51-0; D 14-31; I 1-0, 6/24/03; S.1, CQ Vote #234: Prescription Drug Benefit - Open Enrollment Period, Agreed To 55-42: R 51-0; D 3-42; I 1-0, 6/24/03; S.1, CQ Vote #233: Prescription Drug Benefit - Third-Party Coverage, Agreed To 52-43: R 49-0; D 3-42; I 0-1, 6/24/03; S.1, CQ Vote #232: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Importation, Adopted 62-28: R 21-25; D 40-3; I 1-06/20/03; S.1, CQ Vote #230: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Patents, Adopted 94-1: R 50-1; D 43-0; I 1-0, 6/19/03; S.1, CQ Vote #229: Prescription Drug Benefit - Premium Cap, Rejected 39-56: R 0-51; D 39-4; I 0-1, 6/19/03; S.1, CQ Vote #228: Prescription Drug Benefit - Drug Cost Disclosure, Adopted 95-0: R 51-0; D 43-0; I 1-0, 6/19/03; S.1, CQ Vote #227: Prescription Drug Benefit - Benefit Within Medicare, Rejected 37-58: R 0-51; D 37-6; I 0-1, 6/18/03)

[janekat]

245. Well don't expect any Deaniac's to believe it - even if it's on tape

that Dean said anything pro-war. They'd claim that somehow Kerry (or Clark, or Gephardt, or Edwards) "doctored" the tape.

[sangh0]

248. One supporter

told me that Dean did NOT mispeak about raising the age of eligibility for Medicaid and stuck to that even AFTER Dean himself admitted he had made a mistake.

This poster is participating this thread. Wanna guess who?

[janekat]

285. LOL!! Good thing you specified "on this thread" or else I'd have a

tough time with THAT guess.

[killbotfactory]

256. Dean is not anti-war, he's anti-Iraq war.

Show a tape where Dean says he would support a war and Dean supporters will yawn and ask you what your point is.

[SahaleArm]

261. Is he Anti-Iraq war?

If Saddam really had WMD's and they posed a proveable imminent threat, would Dean pre-emptively invade Iraq?

[killbotfactory]

263. Yes.

If Iraq was a provable imminent threat to the US, and the UN would do nothing about it, then he would support an invasion. By anti-Iraq war, I'm not talking about a hypothetical Iraq war or against War in Iraq under any circumstances, but the war that Bush waged in mid-march of this year.

[SahaleArm]

293. Exactly.

Dean's not anti-war or anti-preemptive attack, he's anti-Bushsh*t war (i.e. going in without meeting the criteria laid out above). My point is that Dean is no peacenik.

[killbotfactory]

306. Well, yeah...

Anyone who's paid attention to Dean would know that.

[mzmolly]

260. Uh huh..

Yea. :freak:

For those of us who's first language is english, Dean's position is and has been pretty clear.

Once again, Dean answered a hypothetical stating that under certain circumstances the US should protect itself. He also said said circumstances for unilateral action were never met.

[mzmolly]

262. ID LIKE TO FORMALLY THANK THE DEAN BASHERS FOR....

continually strengthening my support for Howard Dean. Everytime an issue of this nature arises I question/research.

And...In this case, I found that Dean (once again) was right on the money about this war. He was never afraid to say it, and he put his run for the presidency on the line. I also found that he remained consistant from day one. I knew that, but a refresher is nice every now and again.

*Had they found WMD in Iraq, Dean would not be at the top of the polls right now, but Dean had faith.*

I am so thankful to Gov Dean for fighting the good fight, and giving me a voice when I needed one.

GO DEAN!!!!!! :toast:

Oh and keep the trash a comin', the adversity is preparing us for 'the big time.'

BTW, I just gave another $10 to the Dean campaign, anyone else? ;)

[Cha]

271. I just read all these posts and wanted

to tell you that I enjoyed your "research" and those of all the others who were being "consistent"~

:toast:

[mzmolly]

287. Aw, Thanks Zidzi...

I always enjoy your posts as well.

mzmolly aka Gully.

[janekat]

288. It's called "Cognitive Dissonance"

...."People abhor inconsistency; they just don't like conflicting beliefs in their lives," Cooper explained. When two things we believe are in conflict, we iron out the wrinkles of dissonance.

....As long as we support someone, we must incrementally increase our approval in the face of criticism.

BUT be careful - this also explains the "Bush" phenomenom. You don't want to become a "sheeple."

[mzmolly]

305. It's called "Projecting"...

"To externalize and attribute (an emotion or motive, for example) unconsciously to someone or something else in order to avoid anxiety."

You see, Kerry supporters can't stand the fact that Dean was RIGHT, and Kerry was WRONG. They also can't stand the fact that (because of Kerrys 'mushy' positions) he is losing the battle for the White House.

Thus they cry. "B-B-B-BUT, Dean and Kerry had the saaaame position on Iraq!"

(Nice try, but it won't fly.)

Oh and regarding your theory below on "Congitive Dissonence" as outlined below:

...."People abhor inconsistency; they just don't like conflicting beliefs in their lives,"... When two things we believe are in conflict, we iron out the wrinkles of dissonance."

As most of those people (living in reality) know... there are many major difference between Bush supporters and Dean supporters.

One of said differences is highlited below:

WE (Dean supporters) HAVE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION. We've paid attention all along. We know what Dean's positions are/were in spite of the outrageous claims to the contrary.

:hi: Buh bye.

Oh and ... GO DEAN!

[DrFunkenstein]

289. And His Policies Are Good Too, Right?

I never hear Dean supporters talk about his actual platform. It really is amazing that they haven't moved on from the IWR. IT got Dean to the door, but how can you run on 4 years of opposing the IWR or 4 years of making your grassroots feel special inside?

"And...In this case, I found that Dean (once again) was right on the money about this war. He was never afraid to say it, and he put his run for the presidency on the line. I also found that he remained consistant from day one."

Is that the part about 30-60 days before unilateral war or the part about containing Saddam without having to disarm him? Or Biden-Lugar? It's so hard to keep track of Dean's consistencies...

[mzmolly]

304. Then you haven't listened. You see press releases from Dean here almost

daily. Dean's platform (as well as his positions on the issues) are complex/well thought out/fair and reasonable.

Prick up your ears Dr. You'll hear plenty.

In addition, you asked (regarding my statement above) ~ "Is that the part about 30-60 days before unilateral war or the part about containing Saddam without having to disarm him? Or Biden-Lugar? It's so hard to keep track of Dean's consistencies...

It's about the part where he said (over and over again that) "BUSH NEVER MADE THE CASE FOR WAR". You know, the part you'd rather forget when you pull out bullshit spin?

I shant explain his positions to you again, because it's clear you are; not listening or, you are incapable of understanding complex thought?

You can peruse the press releases here if you really desire to know Howard Dean. I don't suspect you do however.

www.deanforamerica.com

[leesa]

269. Hey dumb shit Kerry, it was Bush and his cronies being duplicitous

not Dean, ass!

[Cha]

272. Yeah, Kerry should have delved into it a little

DEEPER before the IWR vote!

[CWebster]

278. Go away

John.

[quaker bill]

290. The pot calls the kettle black

You can hardly be more duplicitous than Kerry.

The man wants it both ways.

He sees that the war was wrong only because Bush* ran it poorly. His notion is that there was a way to do this right. Kerry was operating from the same premise as Bush*, specifically that Iraq was an imminent threat. The evidence proves that this was so much offal.

You can not do a wrong thing right. The war was not justified.

It is less duplicitous by definition to state that this was a mistake.

We need to apologise, pay reparations, bring the troops home, and as an act of true contrition on the world stage, impeach, convict, and remove from office all of the people that got us into this mess.

[tsipple]

291. Report from a Lurker

I read this whole thread, long though it is.

This discussion has strengthened and deepened my support for Howard Dean. It is amazing how carefully, thoughtfully, and rationally he assessed the Iraq situation and how well he communicated his position. I'm truly impressed, and I will redouble my efforts to make sure that he's elected. There's no question he's the Democrats' strongest candidate -- a true and precient statesman.

I'm also impressed by the dedication and energy of his supporters who are well prepared to instantly rebut attacks. We need that for the general election. I'm sure there will be endless attacks as Bush and his minions try to tear the Democratic nominee down.

If John Kerry is responsible for continuing to harp on the Iraq issue, reminding voters of his Senate YEA for the Iraq Resolution, then I think he has lost it. At least Richard Gephardt had the decency to admit his mistake. I'm tired of the excuses, and I'm disappointed that Kerry is running such an awful campaign.

If the polls are to be believed, New Hampshire voters are similarly disappointed. I don't blame them. As long as John Kerry fails to accept responsibility for his vote he should pay the political price.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

295. and if Howard Dean continues to say he would have voted 'NO'

on the resolution- the voters in the general election will reject him.
Kerry voted for action- Dean would not have, and America will reject Dean as a pacificst.

[maha]

300. I don't think so.

The Iraq War is becoming increasingly unpopular. By this time next year, it could well be that being anti-war from the beginning will be an asset.

They Times They Are a Changin'

[NewYorkerfromMass]

301. yes the war is increasingly unpopular because it is NOW an occupation

but the initial ACTION to have done something about Saddam WILL remain popular with the American people. As far as the general election goes it is that simple.

[maha]

302. Disagree.

People are slowly waking up to the fact that there was NO NEED TO INVADE AT ALL, that they were lied to.

Last October it was thought to be political suicide to oppose the war. This October it is OK to oppose the war and also OK to have supported the war in the past. Next October ... ?

Kerry's war resolution vote will NOT be an asset to him next October. It might be that voters won't care that much-- it'll be a neutral -- but it will NOT be a plus and it might be a negative.

[maha]

299. That's what I'm sayin'

"As long as John Kerry fails to accept responsibility for his vote he should pay the political price."

I think he (and Edwards and Gephardt) should look people in the eye and say, "I'm sorry I voted the way I did. Based on what we knew at the time it was a difficult choice, but I realize now we should not have given Bush such a free hand to invade. It was an error of judgment."

I could respect that. It would make me feel a lot better about these guys (Lieberman being beyond the pale). But as long as they deny they made a mistake I am very uneasy about them.

[ima_sinnic]

294. goodbye John

First he panders to Bush and the gung-ho mindless sheeple screaming for war, then when he sees that didn't work in his favor politically, he takes up to 40 minutes to explain why. "Turn up the heat on Dean"--?? How is being defensive about your own positions "turning up the heat" on anybody? Kerry is just an ordinary political opportunist who did NOT have the balls to oppose Bush in any meaningful way back in the days when it would have taken courage. Now it's easy, and easier still to dump on those who, by contrast, expose him for the panderer and hack that he is. How anyone can support this status-quo candidate is beyond me. He's supposedly "fully aware" of BFEE excesses and lies because of his involvement in Iran-Contra investigation--yet he falls for Bush's obvious lies re buildup to Iraq? give me a break. He of all people should have been in a position to scream loud and clear back in January that Bush was a lying SOB PNAC sock puppet--and speaking of that, why has he never even mentioned PNAC? Those same Iran-Contra criminals are obviously part of it.