Why I think DEAN and KERRY have the SAME position on Iraq

[liberalpragmatist]

You're certainly free to disagree with me, but I honestly find the Iraq war positions of Dean and Kerry very, very similar. I agree that there are some differences, but if you actually evaluate the nuances in each candidate's position, you'll discover that they say the same things about Iraq (even before the war) far more than they say different things.

On Iraq, Dean has carved out a reputation as being unabashedly antiwar and diametrically opposed to the idea in every regard. A close look at his actual position dispels that, however. In a summer 2002 TNR Article (which is locked to non-subscribers), Dean stated that he did NOT believe Iraq was an imminent threat and that regime change was not necessary for protecting America's security -- Saddam Hussein did not have weapons programs advanced enough to directly threaten the U.S. or our allies and that if he did it would only be many years in the future. For that reason, he favored a heavy inspection process and internationalist efforts to moniter Iraq and, if weapons or weapons programs were found, to dismantle them. Dean also stated that he WOULD support a war as a last resort and IF the threat proved to be imminent. He also said he WOULD support a war that was authorized by the UN. Indeed, he supported Biden-Lugar which would have authorized war on Iraq if it were to be authorized by the UN.

Kerry echoed Dean on many, many of the points. Kerry DID vote for the Iraq War Resolution (I'll get to that in a minute), but in his speech and both before and after continued to maintain that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the U.S. or our allies -- it was a potential threat down the road that had to be dealt with by means of inspections and international action. He supported going to war as a last resort if weapons or weapons programs were found and Saddam refused to disarm. He would have supported a unilateral war IF the threat were IMMINENT and he would also have supported a war against Iraq if it wasn't an imminent threat IF it was authorized by the UN. The very day he cast his vote authorizing war, he urged the president to get approval from the UN and to this day Kerry maintains that Bush going to war WITHOUT international support from the UN was wrong. That's extremely close to what Dean said -- he said he'd support a war IF it were authorized by the UN.

That said, the big, obvious difference is the Iraq War Resolution. Kerry claims that he did that to allow the president to go to war IF the UN approved it and if diplomacy and inspections failed. Of course, others claim it was political -- it's difficult to say, but what I don't think you can dispute is that if Kerry HAD NOT voted for the resolution, his position would be virtually INDISTINGUISHABLE from Dean's.

This is obviously open to debate. Feel free to disagree and post your thoughts (duh) but PLEASE refrain from flames -- I understand that since this is a topic that many of you will find it necessary to defend or attack one of the two, Dean or Kerry. That's unavoidable, but TRY not to be overly mean-spirited, and please post intelligent, well-thought out responses to this, not just 1 word flames.

[genius]

1. Actually Kerry was more anti-war than Dean.

Dean just wanted the war delayed. Kerry's only problem is that he underestimated how far Bush would go to get America into a war.

[w4rma]

4. I'm learning that whatever genius says about Dean is usually the opposite

…
Speaking at a fundraising dinner filled with activists wary about going to war again in the Persian Gulf again, Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.), and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean highlight the spectrum of opinion within the Democratic Party as lawmakers in Washington prepare to vote on a resolution authorizing war.

Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran, said the United States should be willing to hold Hussein accountable and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, but only if there is clear international support.

"I'd be willing to be the first to put my uniform back on and go and defend this country," Kerry said. "But I don't think we should pretend that protecting the security of our nation is defined by turning our back on a century of efforts by patriots and presidents of both parties to build an international structure of law and live by higher standards."

Dean, whose advocacy of liberal domestic policies has struck a chord among grass-roots activists here, offered the sharpest dissent. He contended that Bush has yet to make a compelling case to justify going to war.

"The greatest fear I have about Iraq is not just that we will engage in unwise conduct and send our children to die without having an adequate explanation from the president of the United States," he said. "The greater fear I have is the president has never said what the truth is, which is if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years to build that democracy and the president must tell us that before we go."
…
http://www.dre-mfa.gov.ir/eng/iraq/iraqanalysis_27.html

[ScreamingMeemie]

15. My only problem with Kerry is, if you knew it, and I knew it...

then a senator damn well should have known it. That's a sham defense for a stupid decision on his part. We all knew how far Bush would go a long time ago, and so did he.

[genius]

21. Dean wanted to invade Iraq with UN backing

He's a hawk. But because he was wishy washy, his lesser informed supporters believed he was against the war.

[poskonig]

22. Dean didn't "want" to invade Iraq.

Dean said such an invasion required UN support.

Kerry, in contrast, thought we could trust Bush's judgment.

[DemBones DemBones]

24. From what I've read, Kerry did seek out more information from

people who should have known the real scoop on intelligence about Iraq.
I can see that if Kerry had what was supposed to be straight inside dope on Iraq and it supported the Bush* claims about WMD, particularly nuclear weapons, he would have felt he had no choice but to support Bush* on this. None of us were given special private intelligence briefings that built up the case against Iraq.

I don't think Kerry should have voted for the war, and it's a strike against him, but he doesn't have to go sit in the corner with Lieberman anymore, IMO. If the party is going to go with an insider candidate (and that wouldn't surprise me), Kerry is probably the best choice because of his military record. We'll see your Texas Weekend Warrior duty and raise you three Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star . :evilgrin:

[wryter2000]

2. Thank you for your intelligent analysis

I guess I'm having trouble with Kerry not telling Bush "You haven't convinced me there's an immenent threat. When you do, I'll vote to give you war." Voting no at point one doesn't precluding voting yes on a similar proposal later on.

Lots of Dems did vote against the war, let's remember that. And I think it's disingenous to suggest that Bush hadn't made it clear that he was going in, no matter what. He said over and over, "Regime change or we invade."

Having said that, I'd be happy to see recent quotes from Kerry condemning the war. I'm going to bookmark the thread to see if you can provide them because I really want to like Kerry. Outside of the vote on the war, he's fine with me.

[blm]

7. Lots of Dems weren't negotiating with the White House.

Only a few were and it cost them their vote and support to keep Bush from totally ignoring the UN, to get inspectors back in, and prevent Bush from invading Syria and Iran, too. That's how the process works. Would you prefer NO Dem be part of that process and Bush had a REAL blank check?

[DrFunkenstein]

13. White House Was Going To Ignore Congress Altogether

White House officials argue that the decision to launch intensive consultations with Congress and U.S. allies about how to bring about the administration's goal of a regime change in Baghdad was neither a dramatic change of heart nor a sudden retreat in the face of two weeks of damaging coverage about internal divisions and charges of unilateralism.

Administration officials said yesterday there was never any serious consideration given to avoid consulting Congress, despite an interpretation by White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales that Bush has all the authority he needs, from the 1991 resolution authorizing his father to go to war against Iraq, to mount a military campaign to depose Hussein.

Though some White House officials - Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, among them - were privately squeamish about the idea of taking the case on Iraq to Congress, there was no significant opposition in the White House, officials said. "The inclination has always been to consult and we gave fairly serious indications of that," said a White House official.

Although Bush has used the words "consultation" and "debate," senior officials repeatedly say he has not made up his mind yet on an Iraqi invasion, nor has he indicated what he might ask for in a congressional resolution.

Kerry said the administration's challenge is great now as a result of its own mistakes. "They've crisscrossed the rhetorical landscape in a way that's left them with an unfocused rationale and created their own problem of credibility now on why it is they need to proceed," he said."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0906-05.htm

[madfloridian]

3. Baloney

He has stated over and over and over that he opposed the Iraq War....just the Iraq War. He constantly says he is not pacifist.
This is not my opinion. You must never have heard him speak.

Could someone who is a subscriber please share that portion of the article? It sounds fine to me, but when someone says they can't produce, then I want to see it.

I don't mind someone asking questions about Dean or Kerry, but threads that are like this:
"I don't want to be insulting"
"This is not meant to flame, but..."
"Now Deanyboppers don't get your panties in a wad"

And your sentence is the ultimate in two-faced rhetoric:
QU0TE:..."but TRY not to be overly mean-spirited, and please post intelligent, well-thought out responses to this, not just 1 word flames. ......"

[liberalpragmatist]

9. Sorry, I'm NOT trying to discredit Dean

I'm not trying to discredit Dean at all -- I agree with him on Iraq more than I agree with Kerry -- personally, I don't think Kerry should have voted for the resolution.

I'm sorry if you got the impression that I'm trying to discredit Dean -- I regret my stating that he had given off the impression of being extremely antiwar -- what I mean is that that is the impression that most activists and most of the media seem to have taken. I NEVER said Dean is a pacifist. If anything, I want to stop this Kerry-Dean slugfest on DU -- I'd be perfectly happy to support either of them.

Here's the link to TNR article that contained the quote -- I can't log in b/c I'm not a subscriber. http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5358&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1001

Here's another article that contains a Dean quote that backs up my analysis: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5090&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1001

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

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

Dean also said he believed Bush should be spending money for the defense of our country by hiring more emergency workers and suggesting more security measures.

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

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

I've also read it in other places, though I am not able to find them.

[duid12]

5. both sides of his mouth

Just John Kerry talking out both sides of his mouth...saying opposite things to different audiences and hoping nobody notices...unfortunately for him, lots of people DID notice him voting FOR the way and at the same time trying to claim he was ANTI-war...just what we need in Washinton...more doublespeak.

Nice try John....

[DianeK]

8. bottom line....

kerry voted for the war powers act which is in my opinion and scholars could argue, unconstitutional....that one vote upset the balance of power so carefully placed...he neglected his responsibility to uphold the constitution...certainly, not worthy to be president...too late to say 'oops'

[blm]

11. His responsibility was to negotiate with the White House

to prevent Bush from having a REAL blank check to cut out the UN completely, no further weapons inspections, and a free pass to invade Iran and Syria, as well.

It was the Democratic lawmakers who bothered to negotiate who WERE doing their job. It would have been derelict of them to not negotiate and it cost them their vote and support. The other Dem lawmakers know how it works and that's why you don't hear them attacking the Dems who were stuck with those negotiations. I am shocked that so many are unaware of the actual process.

[DrFunkenstein]

10. Dean Is The One With Two Mouths

When he was the "anti-war" candidate with little support, he was all about containment. When he realized he would have to get support from the general public, he changed his tune to disarmament.

Kerry's position has been absolutely consistent since 1997: Multilateral disarmament if possible, unilateral as a last resort.

Early on, Dean was saying that we didn't need to disarm Saddam, because he was so weakened. That went over well at the peace rallies. Unfortunately, that wasn't Dean's real position. Or was it? Flip. Flop.

[Upfront]

6. Good Vote For Dean

He had it 1st. Was not sucked in by the Bush bull. Look out rethugs, this guy can think.

[DrFunkenstein]

12. Dean Was Misled By Bush

Russert: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...

Russert: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country.

Dean: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. He's a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and...

Russert: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

Dean: Well, I wasn't aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled. Now, the question is did the president do that on purpose?

Was he misled by his own intelligence people? Was he misled by the people around us? Or did he, in fact, know what the truth was and tell us something different.

I've called for an independent investigation headed by Republicans and Democrats who are well respected in the country to find out what the president did know and when he knew it.

http://www.deanrocks.com/page.cfm?p=1&c=9

''A bunch of the people who voted for this war are now saying, `Well, we were misled,''' said Dean. ''The fact is you can't afford to be misled if you are running for president of the United States.''

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/206/oped/Dean_won_t_let_Kerry_off_the_hook+.shtml

<>

[molly]

14. I guess this MTP thing has completely slipped his mind

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. I guess the

actual vote has slipped yours.

[DrFunkenstein]

23. Kerry Is Not The Straight Shooting Hypocrite

Maybe Dean should keep his eyes on the real prize instead of sniping at his fellow Democrats.

[Egnever]

25. Screw that!

If it wasnt for deans popularity Kerry and a lot of the other democrats would still be kissing bushes ass! Fuck kerry and his political expediancy and fuck gehphardt for standing in the rose garden licking bushes ass. The truth is the dems in congress wanted to rush the vote so they could try to change the focus of the elections to the economy. Well that bullshit was lame. Dean called em on it and they needed to be called on it.

I am so sick of your bullshit excuses Funkencrap. You know damn well why that vote happened when it did and no amount of bulshit from you or anyone else will change the reality of why that vote went down the way it did. It was a strategy decision pure and simple in order to try to change the focus of the elections. Piss poor representation in order to try to hold onto political seats.

Kerry went with the decision to try to change the focus instead of standing up for what he clearly believed in. He wil forever pay for that. No amount of excuse making on your point will ever hide the fact that he made his vote for political gain pure and simple. He was saying all the right things but his vote landed in the wrong place. He fucked himself and the people he represents. Now hes paying. Sucks for you but its exactly why he doesnt deserve to be president. Conviction first politics second. Otherwise your just a wafler!

[w4rma]

28. Egnever

turn off the personal attacks, please. Sen. Kerry is a good man who, I agree, made a mistake here. But, Dems are going to have to come together and vote for one person in the end, whomever that might be.

I'm refering to the first sentence in your second paragraph.

[DrFunkenstein]

30. Egnever, Do Your Homework Before You Attack

First of all, Kerry's position hasn't changed since 1997. He didn't just make it up to "cover his ass." Secondly, he was publicly fuming that the Bush administration forced the vote before the elections (you know, the one where Cleland lost because he wasn't a patriot). Thirdly, he was pissed that Gephardt and Lieberman undercut the Biden-Lugar proposal. Fourthly, if you keep up these nasty posts you are going to regret it. You can count on that.

---

"I want to underscore, this Administration began with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some Democrats supported it. I would have opposed it...

I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar, because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and delivery vehicles.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days...If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out."

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

Gephardt Caves

HOUSE MINORITY Leader Richard A. Gephardt acceded to the drums of war on Wednesday, agreeing to an overly broad resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to attack Iraq. In the process, Mr. Gephardt undermined efforts in the Senate to limit the war authority to disarmament, rather than regime change.

Mr. Gephardt -- who was joined by other centrist Democrats, including Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut -- claimed to have won important concessions from Mr. Bush, and waxed on about how "this should not be about politics." But the concessions he won were minor, and his actions appear to be driven by the political imperatives of the coming election.

Before Mr. Gephardt decided to cave in on the war resolution, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. had hoped to make the Biden-Lugar resolution the basis of a vote in the Senate. That now appears unlikely.

Mr. Gephardt has long favored regime change in Iraq and called Saddam a serious threat. But as recently as two weeks ago he said that Mr. Bush was not justified in waging war to overthrow Saddam, only in disarming him -- a position exactly in line with the Biden-Lugar resolution he has torpedoed.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1003-01.htm

[polpilot]

26. There you go Rummy...wanting to discuss 'reality' again. 'Reality...it's

actual!!!!!!

Dean '04

[dsc]

17. Those are completely different issues

The fact is I am astonished we didn't find some chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. But the case the WH was making wasn't that they had some but that they were an imminent threat. To the extent that Kerry and others were mislead in that regard is a problem.

[MercutioATC]

18. So you have a hard time understanding the following concept:

1) The Pres said there were WMD

2) At the time, as a Governor with NO vote to make a difference one way or another, I tended to believe him.

3) Kerry (and others) WERE the people who voted. It was THEIR responsibility to make sure they voted for the best of the country.

4) Now they're saying they were misled. If it was their responsibility to verify reasons for the war, they should have DONE that. If they HAD done that, they wouldn't have been misled.

It was AT NO TIME Gov. Dean's (or ANY Governor's) responsibility to decide on the validity of the war. It WAS Congress' responsibility.

Did Kerry bear responsibility to research STATE issues in Vermont? No. How, then, can you say that Dean had the responsibility to have the same level of responsibility to research NATIONAL issues that a U.S. Congressman does?

[poskonig]

19. 23 Senators did not vote for authorizing Bush.

I want to know why Kerry wasn't one of them.

[MercutioATC]

20. AMEN! My point exactly.

I've said before that The War Resolution and the Patriot Act were less "Where do I stand?" issues than "How do I save my political ass?" issues. Those that voted for them saved their collective political asses....at least for a while.

[blm]

27. 23 Senators who DID not negotiate with the White House

to prevent Bush from getting that REAL blank check that he wanted.

Why haven't any of those Senators criticized the vote of those who were doing the negotiating? Because they understand how the process of negotiating with the White House works. Those who refuse to acknowledge it, are either just too dense or willfully obtuse for their own political agenda.

[wryter2000]

29. I don't really see

I don't really see that a whole lot of negotiation was done. Did they get a say in when we invaded, how many troops were sent, whether or not we bombed the crap out of Baghdad? If Kerry could stand up in front of me and say, "Well, Bush wanted to use nukes and we made him back down from that," I'd say he accomplished something. What did they negotiate?

There are two things we do have to remember when belittling Kerry here, though. 1) Dean (as much as I love him) didn't have to make that decision. Think of the consequences if Bush had been telling the truth about the threat from Saddam. 2) It was more than reasonable to believe that Saddam did have biological and chemical weapons. Even I've been surprised that we've found nothing.

But I still want to know what Kerry's saying about the war now. If he's saying, "If I knew then what I know now, my vote would have been different," "I made a mistake," "Bush lied to me," I can stand behind him if he gets the nomination. I think whoever said he doesn't have to sit in the corner with Lieberman is right on.

[blm]

31. Bush wanted to go in WITHOUT having to

go through the UN at ALL.

He wanted to be able to invade Iran and Syria, too.

He did not want further weapons inspections.

He did not want to have to present any evidence to the UN.

There was some negotiating and it cost those who negotiated their vote.