Kerry, Dean, the War, the Vote - Let's set some things straight

[ProfessorPlum]

There is a lot of confusion here and everywhere about the difference between the vote (and hypothetical votes) and support for the war. It's understandable because the press can't keep it straight, the Republicans absolutely don't want to keep it straight, and the some of the Democrats themselves have confused the issue. Let's take three examples:

Dean: said he would have supported Biden-Lugar, but didn't support the war.

Kerry: voted for something very close to Biden-Lugar, but said very clearly in the first Democratic debate and since then also that he supported the war.

Lieberman: voted for something very close to Biden-Lugar, enthusiastically supports the war, and equates his voting with "supporting the war", which confuses the hell out of everyone.

Ok, are we all on the same page?

Now, everyone and their mother is confusing the vote with "supporting the war" thanks to Lieberman, the media, and others with a stake in that.

When someone slams Kerry for the vote, I believe (and I know I'm getting into dangerous waters here) they are actually slamming his support for the war. But since they say he "voted for the war", it allows Dean-bashers to bring up Biden-Luger, which Dean supporters then defend with the same arguments as Kerry supporters defend Kerry's vote for the resolution (which is right and proper to do, the two versions of the resolution being pretty close).

If we're all careful, we don't have to have this confusing conversation again (but of course we will).

I believe that what people object to is Kerry's stated support for the war. And in Nicholas's "Kerry strikes back" thread we find this Kerry quote: "I could not have been more clear, and the president chose not to do it the way that I suggested."

I still find this a problem with Kerry. Not only did he trust the President (THIS president!) to listen to him (a lowly Senate Democrat), but he essentially admits that even though Bush didn't do what he wanted, he "supported" the war anyway. And: "I voted to make America safe." - unfortunately, as Dean has said, the case was not proven. It turns out America was plenty safe, as many of us suspected.

[flyingfish]

1. Dean was not in a position to vote

So it is easy for him to bash Kerry and Lieberman.
Monday morning quarterback in other words.

[MercutioATC]

3. Except that he's been saying the same thing since the vote...

even when 70% of the public supported the war. If this were a new position for Dean since the war has lost some support, I'd agree with you. It's not.

The civil union legislation that Dean signed wasn't popular, either. He doesn't just sign easy legislation.

[Vis Numar]

2. Quit blurring the issue

No one is confused but you, here's the facts:


Kerry voted against the first Gulf war, to beat back Iraqs invasion of Kuwait.

Kerry voted for the invasion of Iraq, giving into Bush's doctrine of pre-empitve unilateralism.

I asked him how could he reconcile these two votes?

He said that he didn't support the first, because the nation was divided on it. Prior to the vote for the second, he told moveon.org that they needed to raise the volume in opposition, for him to vote against it.

Kerry did not hear the volume then, and only now does he get it, and sends out plums to try and obscure his on messed up position.

But so what. The point is that if Kerry is that vacuous of a principled understanding of military issues, he should not be the Democratic Presidential nominee (neverminding the obvious point that Kerry has a terrible finger for the wind).

Kerry is failing, he's dropping in the polls, off the radar, good bye...

[blm]

6. He voted for a resolution that had war as a LAST RESORT.

Deal with it.

Howard Dean the Lying Machine is headed for a date with KARMA.

[indigo32]

7. Howard

got the biggest pop of the day in Iowa (on C-Span last night) stating his opposition on to the war. He has been consistent on this. Say what you like... no skin off my back (your not convincing me of ANYTHING). His karma will be to run away with the nomination.

[janx]

11. blm, why do you continue with such low-rent posts against

Dean? It's not going to help Kerry any, it's going to hurt him.

[blm]

24. Do you police ALL the posts equally?

There is nothing exceptionally different to my posts and those who go after candidates they dislike and distrust.

[janx]

31. I'm not policing. I'm asking. Do you not realize that it denigrates

Kerry when you do this? I've asked others who are bashing candidates the same question.

[blm]

32. We'll see...

Haven't caught much of the nanny act directed at Dean supporters for the last 7 months.

[MercutioATC]

35. Untrue. You and a few others post almost exclusively anti-Dean posts

Most members post support for their candidate with the occasional slap at one candidate or another. You and a few others (we all know who) claim to support Kerry, or Kucinich, or Clark, but post many more anti-Dean posts than pro-whomever posts.

THAT is what makes you different.

[blm]

37. Go look at my history...

I only started on Dean when he, cheered on by people here, attacked the other Dems and the Democratic party. He didn't do it honestly, he attacked them disingenuously based on negative perceptions about them and false perceptions about himself.

YOU found nothing wrong in all the negative posts against other candidates, so be consistent or back off.

[janx]

39. blm, he wasn't "attacking" them. He was challenging them.

And the lot of them got a little more fired up and a lot more definitive in their positions as a result.

Overall it was a very good thing.

[mike_c]

13. yeah, right-- everyone KNEW that Bush* would only invade...

...as a last resort. Sure, that's the ticket. C'mon-- every congress-critter who voted YES knew full well that they were authorizing an illegal invasion, and that they were NOT simply giving Bush* another negotiating tool. Kerry, Edwards, Graham, Gephardt, and Lieberman all voted to SUPPORT Bush's war crimes-- you just can't dress that up any better than that. Some have tried to justify their support since, some continue their support, and some have tried to do the mealy-mouthed back shuffle, but they all bent over and spread their legs when Bush* told them to. Not my idea of presidential material!

Maybe Dean *would* have, maybe he wouldn't-- it's not particularly relevant in the face of real history. The fact is that THEY did, and if any of them claim to have not known that Bush* would actually inveade they're either lying or so seriously deluded as to be a danger to the public trust.

[blm]

25. Biden-Lugar had war as last resort, too.

Who built the strawman argument that everybody claimed not to know Bush would invade?

Sure they knew he would invade. They also knew he wanted to skip the UN, and invade Iran and Syria, and they put their effort into negotiating to stop him from getting a real blank check.

[Cha]

28. You say that so cavalierly....I could say the same about kerry

"the Lyin' Machine" has a Big Fat DAte with KARMA!

[ProfessorPlum]

10. Yeah, I'm real confused

if I follow your logic, then Dean is as guilty of "giving in to Bush's doctrine of pre-empitve unilateralism" as much as Kerry is, since Dean (bravely) took a position on the vote he didn't have to make which was very similar to Kerry's.

The problem is Kerry's non-opposition to the war, not his vote (though I will admit that it poses certain symbolic problems that Kerry has not done anything to help. Arguing that the logic for Bush's war "What was I supposed to do?" in it actuality was correct does not help Kerry clear up).

As far as I can tell, the only one who took Kerry's logic to its logical conclusion (unilateral regime-change was bad) was Dean.

[Vis Numar]

4. dup

..

[blm]

5. Baloney....

There were other factors involved in the process that you ignore. The whole dynamic of the region and the concerns of Clinton and the Dems since 98, of growing fundamentalism as represented by Bin Laden and the Taliban who had targeted Saddam for overthrow themselves.

[ProfessorPlum]

8. Apparently

Bush and Kerry were both fighting the war of '98, based on the intelligence of '98, with the issues of '98. Since then, Clinton appears to have taken out any remaining WMDs with airstrikes, and a UN inspections team could find no new evidence for them. Saddam needed to be disarmed, but apparently we didn't have to prove that he had arms.

[blm]

26. Check out the congressional testimony in 98

from the inspectors then. And it wasn't just based on what was known in 98, it also deals with Bin Laden in 98 thru 2002. You think Bin Laden ever stopped targeting Saddam? The goal for Clinton and the other Dems was not imperialism.

[killbotfactory]

30. Yeah, right before we bombed the crap out of Iraq.

And targetted every suspect site we could find.

Why does everyone conveniently forget Desert Fox? I never understood that during the run up to war.

[jfkennedy]

9. Dean is CIA material

Dean is more then likely a CIA asset anyone can call themselves anti-war in a time of war.

About the only thing that he has in his resume to call himself liberal is his anti-war position everything else in his philosophy is frankly fascist, and un-American.

He is for the death penalty, a fascist law.

The Death penalty does not stop crimes.

He is pro environment well so is the KKK.

I have not heard Clarks position on the death penalty, but my guess is he is pro death penalty, so I will probably not support him for president.

The irony is Bush really can lose the election, but, fear will put Bush back in power. But what sort of power will he have and over what?

Most don't even think he was voted in in the first place. In 2004 again no one will go out and vote but the small minority that does.

They control a government that does not consider people but only the institution of fascism, and the institution of war for wars sake.

The media which is owned by offshore interests controls the policy making of the House and Senate.

My guess is a revolution will happen in our lifetime, and Democracy will be restored.

[ProfessorPlum]

12. Wow, Dean's a fascist - that pretty much wins the hyperbole award

. Congrats.

[janx]

14. Actually, Dean is fighting fascism.

He is its nemesis.

[George_Bonanza]

17. There are no fascists in the Democratic party, period

[janx]

19. I was not referring to the Democratic party.

.

[jfkennedy]

15. His philosophy is because

I am opposed to the death penalty because it's institutionalized violence. Fascism and the death penalty are a philosophy that fear thru the use of institutionalized violence will make the world more peaceful.

He is against gun control. A guns only purpose is to kill people not protect them.

Think of the world from the beginning of time and the evolution of wars. First people protected themselves by the fist. Then they used the stone. Then the spear. Then the sword. Then the gun. Then the A-bomb. Have the 1235 wars to end all wars from the beginning of history made the world safer?

Did the Nuke bomb prevent 9/11 and keep the Taliban out?

In fact it was the false security that we had as a country with the Nuke bomb that made us even less secure, and open to attack.

Peace can only come from the non-violent revolution of the people.

[Ripley]

16. Are you doing LSD right now?

You're not making much sense, and you seem to have received some bad information about Dean.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Are you on heroin right now?

You're not making much sense, and you seem to have received some bad information about LSD.

[Rose Siding]

21. And he holds the same position as the KKK

Don't forget that hippo bowl

[w4rma]

20. Public was misled, claim ex-CIA men

CIA had doubts on Iraq link to al-Qaida

The debunking of the Bush administration's pre-war certainties on Iraq gathered pace yesterday when it emerged that the CIA knew for months that a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida was highly unlikely.

As President George Bush was forced for the second time in days to defend the decision to go to war, a new set of leaks from CIA officials suggested a tendency in the White House to suppress or ignore intelligence findings which did not shore up the case for war.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,974182,00.html

Ex-CIA Officers Questioning Iraq Data

A small group composed mostly of retired CIA officers is appealing to colleagues still inside to go public with any evidence the Bush administration is slanting intelligence to support its case for war with Iraq.

Members of the group contend the Bush administration has released information on Iraq that meets only its ends -- while ignoring or withholding contrary reporting.

They also say the administration's public evidence about the immediacy of Iraq's threat to the United States and its alleged ties to al-Qaida is unconvincing, and accuse policy-makers of pushing out some information that does not meet an intelligence professional's standards of proof.

"It's been cooked to a recipe, and the recipe is high policy," said Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA veteran who briefed top Reagan administration security officials before retiring in 1990. "That's why a lot of my former colleagues are holding their noses these days." ---
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030314/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_intelligence_4
http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID61/18413.html

Public was misled, claim ex-CIA men

A GROUP of former US intelligence officials has written to President Bush claiming that the US Congress and the American public were misled about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the war.

The group’s members, most of them former CIA analysts, say that they have close contacts withsenior officials working inside the US intelligence agencies, who have told them that intelligence was“cooked” to persuade Congress to authorise the war.

The manipulation of intelligence has, they say, produced “a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions”. They write in the letter to Mr Bush: “While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes, never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorise launching a war.

“You may not realise the extent of the current ferment within the intelligence community and particularly the CIA. In intelligence, there is one unpardonable sin — cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy. There is ample indication that this has been done in Iraq.”
...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-698028,00.html

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0207-04.htm

[George_Bonanza]

18. Lieberman DOES confuse people, Prof

He keeps saying Dean is too "extremist" when that's such a lie and misconception. It only adds to the public confusion when Kucinich tells the truth and says Dean may not be liberal enough if anything.

[genius]

22. I know Kerry was opposed to the war.

I saw him at the CA Democratic Convention, the Friday before the war started. I was pretty close to the stage and, before Kerry left, I heard one of the people say he was against the war. Kerry reponded that he was too in a low, quite voice that sounded full of pain. I really got that Kerry was sincere in what he said to the individual. I got the impression that he strongly regretted his vote. He obviously made a mistake and backed himself into a corner. A lot of candidates have made mistakes. If Kerry gets the nomination, I'll support him. I'm not voting for him in the primary. I am going for Kucinich, the candidate I feel is the best man for the job. But I still think Kerry is a good person and that he would do the right thing if he were elected.

[killbotfactory]

23. Too bad that's not what he said when the war was starting.

Or during the SC debate.

To quote Kerry:

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.

What weapons did we disarm, again?

Too bad his campaign manager has attacked Dean saying he's unelectable since Dean opposed the war.

[Cha]

29. Yeah! That big mouth statement seals the deal and paints them

into a tiny corner.

[ProfessorPlum]

33. I think Kerry is a good human and a very good legislator

and a good progressive, too. But if he does feel he made a mistake with his vote, he really needs to say it, get it over with, and get back to bashing Bush. He keeps saying that his vote was correct, and doesn't ever say much of anything that I can find about his opposition or support of the war, except a few things.

Like I said, if Kerry laid out a doctrine or a position during his speech before the IRW vote, the only one who has been true to that doctrine consistently was Dean. And the idea was that, if Saddam was proven dangerous then we had to do something about him, preferably with the UN. Bush didn't prove the threat, didn't work with the UN, and invaded without given inspectors time, for the purpose of regime change. That was when Kerry said he would "vigorously oppose" any attempts to do just what Bush did - and that is what Dean did - he "vigorously opposed" it.

In a way, the two are on different sides of the same coin. Kerry laid out the rational approach to deal with Iraq. Dean agreed with Kerry in almost all salient details. Dean followed through with actually holding Bush to Kerry's standards, whereas Kerry just seems to be disappointed with Bush. Kerry should be grateful to Dean for actually following through on his criteria with Bush, and Dean should be grateful to Kerry for constructing such a logical, step-by-step approach and argument toward the war.

If Kerry had been more consistent with his own position, he'd be in a lot better shape right now, and we'd be that much closer to realizing (as a country) what a giant mistake this war has been. And that much closer to getting those men and women home (or at least having some more allies, etc.)

[UnapologeticLiberal]

34. So why can't he admit that he made a mistake?

I would have a lot of respect for him if he would come out and say "I was wrong. The president lied, and I based my vote on those lies, and I regret that." Basically what I gather from him is that he voted for the resolution because he thought that it would put the president in a stronger negotiating position at the UN, thus making us more likely to go through the UN. But he was disappointed that in spite of having that added negotiating strength, the president decided to flout the UN and go in unilaterally. So he should come out and say that he was wrong to put so much faith in the president. He could frame it through outrage, saying that as a veteran he could not fathom that the commander in chief would be so eager to send American troops into battle as if he views the whole thing as a game.

[George_Bonanza]

36. He could, and in some ways, he has

He keeps saying he stands by his vote, stating he feels it was the correct vote at the time, given the intelligence. By saying "at that time," I think he's subtlely admitting his vote was wrong.

[DrFunkenstein]

38. Professor, Sometimes I Want To Strangle You!!!

<>

"Dean: said he would have supported Biden-Lugar, but didn't support the war.

Kerry: voted for something very close to Biden-Lugar, but said very clearly in the first Democratic debate and since then also that he supported the war."

Why do you switch from "supported" to "voted for"? Kerry also "supported" Biden-Lugar, but only had one resolution to vote for.

We already had this discussion about "the war." It is an overly vague term that Dean supporters use to suit whatever purpose they want.

Kerry supported disarmament, not "the war." He has always been a vocal opponent of "the war."

Kerry did not "trust" the President to listen to him. He gave the policies he would follow if he were President, something Dean has never done (other than vaguely speak of multilateralism). He thoroughly laid out why Iraq needed to kept in check, and what would be the most effective path to accomplishing that.

He said, in no uncertain terms, that he would be "the first to speak out" if Bush deviated from the course he laid out - a promise he kept.

When Kerry says he voted "to keep America safe," it was not because Saddam was an imminent threat. He said clearly and often that was not the case. But he also said that in the 9/11 climate it was unacceptable to let Saddam go unchecked - a point Dean remembers or forgets at his discretion.

I swear, Professor, sometimes I think you just create these threads to screw with me. This is the third or fourth such thread.